The SoapBoxers

Things have been very quiet around here lately, mostly because work had been consuming my life for the year or so.  The good news is that my work hours have now dropped off significantly (to 40ish, down from 65 or 70 recently).  That should give me quite a bit more time to write.

I’m probably be doing quite a few book reviews at first, because I’ll also be reading a lot more than I have recently.

So, no real context in this post.  Just wanting you to know that I’m still alive.

James DiMaggio is the man who kidnapped Hannah Anderson after killing her mother and brother.  The sister of the killer is now asking the family to provide the DNA of Hannah and her brother for DNA testing.  Why?  Because they believe DiMaggio may be the biological father.  For the record, the family states that Hannah’s mother didn’t meet DiMaggio until she was six months pregnant with Hannah (which is difficult to independently verify) and that the body of Hannah’s brother Ethan was identified via a DNA match with his father (easy to independently verify with the police).

When I first read about this, my first reaction was “What the hell are they thinking?”  I don’t understand the logic of putting a grieving family through this.  You’re essentially accusing the dead woman of adultery, and to what end?  There may be more complexity to this situation than was immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean you can just start making demands of the family.

I discussed the topic with a friend, and his response was that it had to do with family honor.  If DiMaggio was the biological father and the murders and kidnapping were the result of an argument about visitation rights, the perception might be that he’s somewhat less evil than a guy who didn’t have a “reason”.  I don’t buy this logic on a couple of levels.  First of all, regardless of the motivation, he killed two people.  I don’t see killing the mother of your child and your child as being less evil than killing a family friend and her son.  Even if this is something that would improve the public perception of DiMaggio, doesn’t it make sense to weigh the possible gain for your family against the hurt you would be causing the victims’ family?

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see where DiMaggio’s family has any legal basis to force DNA testing.  If DiMaggio were still alive and his status as biological father would help his case, I could see some logic that this is exculpatory evidence and might possibly be basis for a subpoena (again, I am not a lawyer).  However, since DiMaggio is dead, there won’t be a trial, so this would seem to undermine the basis for a subpoena.

The stated reason is that the family is curious about why DiMaggio left $110,000 to Hannah and Ethan’s aunt.  They find it “strange” that this was done, and are wondering if Hannah and Ethan are his biological children.  Well, there are other explanations for such a bequest, and idle curiosity isn’t a particularly good reason to be requesting a DNA test.  Curiosity be damned – it’s none of your business.

My advice to the Anderson family – tell the DiMaggio clan to go pound sand.

The media tells us that fans don’t really care about baseball’s All Star Game.  I’m the counterpoint to that – I loved the All Star Game as a kid, and I still enjoy it today.  The ability to see all the great players congregating in one place makes the event bigger than the Super Bowl for me.  I’m not particularly interested in ancillary activities like the Home Run Derby – I’m all about the game.  Here are my reactions to this year’s game.

Rockies Representation

My Colorado Rockies will send three players to the game.  Troy Tulowitzki was the runaway leader at shortstop, despite losing a month to a broken rib.  Tulo will start a rehab assignment tomorrow and might play in the game.  Outfielder Carlos Gonzalez is having a tremendous year and was also voted a starter, as Justin Upton’s lack of May/June production caused him to plummet in the late voting.  Finally, outfield Michael Cuddyer was elected by the players.

Yasiel Puig

The single biggest story surrounding the All Star game is whether or not Dodgers rookie outfielder Yasiel Puig will be in the game.  Puig has only a month of service time in the majors, but he has been arguably the best player in baseball during that time.  That has sparked a lively debated.  Proponents of adding Puig to the roster argue that he’s clearly a star.  Those opposed to his inclusion say that he hasn’t paid his dues.  At the moment, he’s a candidate on the Final Man vote and will most likely be added to the team.

Roster Size

Each team will have 34 players who will be eligible to play in the game.  Additionally, there will be several players who don’t count against that total – players who are injured, or pitchers who pitch in a regular game next Sunday and opt not to pitch in the game.  This means that each team will have around 40 players in uniform for the game.  Have 80 “All Stars” stretches the meaning of the term a bit.

I’d be in favor of a small roster of 25 active player and a hard cap of 30 players suited up for each side.  To accomplish this, MLB would have to do away with the rule that every team must be represented.  Their argument is that fans are more likely to watch if they can watch one of their team’s players.  Of course, as the roster has swelled, a lot of these players sit on the bench for the entire game.  It’s simply not feasible to work 34 players into the game without making the game six hours long and pretty much making a mockery of the process.  If you want to force the inclusion of all teams, make it a rolling 2 or 3 year schedule, where each team is guaranteed a player in specific years.

Prediction

Who is going to win the game?  The National League, of course.  (Naturally, that’s my prediction every single year)

This was one of the crazier Masters of recent memory.

Controversy #1

Tianlang Guan started off the controversy of the week. The 14 year old Amateur from China, was penalized for slow play. This is the first time ever a participant has been penalized for slow play in the Masters, and the first time on a tour event since 2010. Hopes were high in Guans’ home country of China – which is a phoenix rising from the ashes for the future of golf. (my cousin is there working on golf course design literally as we speak).

On Thursday while trying to make the cut, Guan was paired with Ben Crenshaw and the seeming old man from Italy, Matteo Manassero, who is also a young up and coming golfer on the world scene – mainly on the European Tour. The dominoes all started falling on hole #10, when the group was told they were out of position. For you “non” golf followers, this means get your act together and pick up the pace.

Again they were warned on Hole #12, and Guan was put on the clock. This effectively means you have 40 seconds or less to play your shot, once arriving at your golf ball.

He was warned that he was exceeding the time limit of being on the clock, and received an official warning on Hole #13. He was again warned on hole #16, and finally after exceeding his allowable time on his 2nd shot on hole #17 by what was quoted as “a considerable margin” he was informed that he would be penalized one shot for slow play.

Crenshaw and Manassero both admitted they could have likely stressed the significance of the situation a bit more to him, but they also agreed that there was no question he played very deliberate at times.

Crenshaw and Manessero, both veterans know how to work the system. You get warned, they bring an official over to time you, you pick up the pace of play, and then the official leaves….once that happens you dust back off the tortoise pace and continue on your way with your sun dial 6 ½ hour round that is made for television.

Problem is, Guan is just 14, this is his first big stage event, and hey we are playing Augusta National here…..I am sure he wanted to take a little extra time while playing certain shots. The problem is, he was not well versed enough to know when to kick it into second gear and get the transmission out of idle.

Controversy #2

Where would we all be in golf without Eldrick Tont Woods?

Round #2, right in position where he wants to be, lays up on 15. In a great position, Lets a lob wedge fly….right at the flagstick

WHACK!

Back into the water.

Tiger takes a drop, hits another shot, and gets it in the cup for a bogey. If he misses the flagstick, his golf ball likely ends up mere feet away from the cup and most assuredly would have resulted in a birdie.

And then there is the invention of HDTV.

An anonymous person “calls” in and reports a possible rules infraction of an incorrect drop. It appears that Tiger had mis-applied the drop based on rule 26-1. This applies to a yellow staked water hazard, where you have three options.

1. Play the ball from the drop area – decided against this one, he did not like the angle to the green.

2. Drop the ball, keeping the point where it last crossed the hazard between the hole and the drop spot, with no limit as far back as you can go. Problem here is that the ricochet off the flagstick would make that line much more to the left side of the fairway from where Tiger’s drop took place.

3. Return to the original spot and take a drop as nearly as possible to the original spot from which the ball was last played. – This is what he admittedly did….except….

Tiger freely admitted in a post round interview that he intentionally went back an extra 2 yards.

The Masters Golf Tournament Rules committee reviewed the tape and determined that he had breached the rule, but then imposed a relatively unknown and seldom used rule. This being put in place a few years ago after a similar call in incident disqualified a golfer for signing an incorrect scorecard, after it was deemed –again by a call-in viewer – that a rule had been broken.

There will be a lot of debate if Tiger should have gotten this ruling, or should have been DQ’d. I for one think he should have told the Masters Committee, “thanks for the favorable ruling, but, I need to disqualify myself based on what I see in the footage”

Of course I don’t expect a guy chasing 18 Majors to remove himself from competition in one, but it would have been the right and proper thing to do. In a tournament filled with history, integrity and honor, this would have been the most honorable out.

Instead he played well, but missed a lot of chances, and finished 4 strokes back and tied for 4th place.

Congratulations!

The overlooked story is that Adam Scott, in spite of making absolutely nothing with the long putter until #18 and then again on the 2nd playoff hole at #10 to win the coveted Green Jacket, take home his first major championship, and get the monkey and critics of his inability to win a big one, off of his back.

Likewise, props to Angel Cabrera, who gutted it out down the stretch and hit the best approach of the day on #18 to about 3 feet to set up the tying birdie and force a playoff. Cabrera lost the tournament in my mind when he forced the issue on #13. He hit an iron out of the pine straw and into Rae’s Creek when he really could have hit a lay-up shot and still played an easy wedge into the green and set up a likely birdie opportunity. He had the lead by 2 strokes at the time….and likely did not need to make this play.

But we will never know for sure.

Until next time…Stay Classy Adelaide, Australia.

Weekend #2 of March Madness starts tonight. Gone is the first week of play in games, followed by 32 more games, a bunch of missed days at the work place, long lunches and last minute entries to office pools.

This is also the week that most of the urologists take a week of vacation after performing so many vasectomies last week…..

B1G Rules!

All year long I have thought the B1G 10 was a bit on the over-rated side. I have watched most of these teams play in person, and was not overly impressed with anyone other than Ohio State. (I do coincidentally have “THE” making it a long way in the tourney) Upset wins by Minnesota in the first round, followed by Sweet 16 appearances by Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan and Ohio State shows the conference has flexed their muscle.

I still think Indiana is really not as good as advertised, but the next round of games will really tell the story. Wisconsin is a team that many predicted would do much better than one and done.

In the NIT tourney, the Iowa Hawkeyes have also made a nice run and are headed to Madison Square Garden for the Final 4 of the NIT tourney. The Hawkeyes who had a 20+ win season, but had a poor strength of schedule and some horrible losses have changed their ways. A team known all year to lose the close one and let games slip away late, have found ways to win.

Planting Seeds

The biggest seed left is Florida Gulf Coast. This is the first #15 seed to ever make the round of 16. The Eagles have impressed and excited fans across the country with their high flying playground style of play. They play fellow sunshine state team – Florida in the next round. This will be a much bigger step up for FGCU, will the glass slipper still fit?

LaSalle was a #13 seed and is also in the round of 16. They get this far after winning three games, including the play in game win over Boise St, the upset of Kansas State in the round of 64 and by beating Mississippi, who knocked of Wisconsin. Now they get Wichita State, who disposed of Gonzaga. The Explorers have had the easiest time of it as a few notable teams and higher seeds have been knocked off on the way up the ladder. The Shockers out of the Missouri Valley, played second fiddle to Creighton but ultimately get the last laugh on against the boys from Omaha- as they remain in the round of 16, while Duke send the Blue Jays packing last weekend. Look for LaSalle to continue the dream and make the Elite 8.

Oregon is the only other double digit seed (#12) that is still around to play. Oregon likely was seeded to low, and they have shown that the ducks are a force to be reckoned with as they have beat Oklahoma State and St. Louis fairly easily. That all stops now as they play tournament overall #1, Louisville. Oregon will play them tough, but the only department they will win during this match-up is ugliest green uniforms.

I like Louisville, but secretly am rooting for Ohio State

And on the Women’s Side….

Normally in the Women’s NCCA tournament, the chalk is pretty much what you go with. That makes the local Huskers a good story. A #6 seed making the Sweet 16 on the women’s bracket does not happen very often. Matter of fact, only 4 #6 seeds advanced this far, with no seeds any higher than that making it. LSU, Oklahoma, Delaware and Nebraska keep the hopes alive for the “higher” seeds.

Nebraska is also the only remaining B1G 10 team remaining in the tournament. They play the Blue Devils this round who are 30-2. Like most years the teams left standing at the end are likely to include Notre Dame, Connecticut, Stanford and Baylor.

It is Baylor’s to lose.

Until next time, stay classy Fort Wayne, Indiana

Last Friday, a gunman killed twenty kids and six adults at an elementary school in Connecticut. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, there have been several tragic shooting at schools across the United States. Many parents wonder if they should pull their kids out of schools. Are schools a dangerous place for kids?

How dangerous are schools?

There are about fifty five million students attending the more than one hundred thirty thousand schools across the country. Add in three and a half million teachers and various other employees, and more than sixty million people could be in schools at any point and time. That’s nearly one in five Americans.

How safe are schools? Let’s look at some statistics from The Institute of Education Sciences within the National Center for Education Statistics. Between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 (latest period for which full statistics are available) seventeen students were killed at school or school related functions. That’s seventeen too many.

During the same time, 1562 kids between the age of five and eighteen were victims of homicide (citation: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2011/figures/figure_01_2.asp). Wow.  That’s the equivalent of more than 50 Sandy Hooks in a year. As incredibly tragic as school shootings are, they tiny fraction of the total number of kids being murdered every year.  It’s the very tip of the iceberg.  A child is far more likley to be killed by a parent than by a gunman at school.

Veterans in schools

One suggestion I’ve seen from Republicans friends of mine is to employ 3-4 veterans as security at every school.  At first glance, that’s a very interesting idea.  Let’s take a moment to run the numbers.  Let’s assume four at each school.  Let’s assume an average salary of $25,000 with total employment costs (health insurance, FICA, etc) at around $35,000.  This would add  more than a half million people to government payrolls, at a cost of $18 billion.  That’s an interesting suggestion from the party that believes in smaller government.

I’m also not sure how effective it would be.  Would shooters just decide not to kill anyone?  Or would they just move on to softer targets?  If you take a moment to think of all the times when groups of children are in vulnerable situations, you may not be able to sleep tonight.  Would heavily guarded schools simply transfer the death toll elsewhere, with the net outcome to society the same?  I don’t have a good answer to that question.

Take away all the guns

Should we just ban all guns?  Even if we wanted to do this, it’s not feasible.  There are a huge number of unlicensed weapons in this country.  Weapons have always been a part of American life, and many guns have been handed down from generation to generation.  Tracking down all these guns would be impossible.

Of course, the criminals would keep their guns … and would probably employee some machine shops to manufacturer guns for them.  The manufacture of the most basic guns is not exactly rocket science.

Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people

This is true. 

However, guns make it easy to kill quickly, and from a distance.  In China last week, someone injured 23 people in a knife attack.  How many died?  Zero.  It takes far more effort to kill twenty people with a knife than with a gun.  First, you must get close to the victim, which allows them to fight back (or others to tackle you).  Second, it takes more time to perform the actual kill.  It’s not just a matter of pulling a trigger.

While it’s not practical to ban all guns (and would violate the 2nd amendment), let’s spend a moment discussing guns with high firing rates / high capacity.  I’m not a firearms expert, so I’m not going to give a specific definition for this.  A simple revolver won’t with this category, an AK-47 will.  At some point between those two weapons, there is a line of demarcation.

I’m not a gun expert, but my thought is that there are three basic uses for a gun:

• Defense – Includes self-defense and many law enforcement situations.
• Hunting/Sport
• Offense  – Includes military, extreme law enforcement situations (siege), and homicide.

My basic question is the purpose of high capacity weapon in these situations. 

In a self-defense situation, it seems a bit unlikely that one of these weapons would be more helpful than a more traditional weapon.  If you have to fire a hundred rounds in a defense situation, you have some very serious problems (such as being under attack by an entire regiment of the Canadian Army).  Maybe there have been real life situations where someone has needed this sort of capacity in a defense situation.

I also wonder about the need for such a weapon in a hunting situation.  If you have to fire a hundred rounds to kill an animal, doesn’t that diminish the skill aspect of hunting a bit?  I’d also consider sport uses of firearms to be secondary to safety concerns. 

So, then, is there a need for high fire rate / high capacity firearms in the hands of civilians?  And if so, what is that need?

BPA is bad for you, we’ve been told.  It was banned from baby bottles in the US and Canada.  Then came an even bigger scare – a study that showed that a mother eating food packaged in BPA could cause lower thyroid levels in boys!

The something funny happened.  Concerned parent Sarah points out that the government of Canada released a study that says that consuming products packaged in BPA does not cause a health risk.

Sarah asks whom we would trust – the researcher who is dependent on grant money or the government of Canada.

I’ll take this even a step further and point out the existence of what is known as “publication bias”.  The studies that appear in journals – and thus are far more likely to end up in the mainstream media or be noticed by legislators – are more likely to be the results that are shocking or unexpected.

For example, let’s say that we’re studying whether or not drinking a quart of orange juice every day can prevent the growth of tumors.  Ninety nine studies do not show any link, but one study appears to show that drinking the orange juice does indeed prevent the tumors from growing.  Guess which one is going to end up in a scientific journal?  Certainly not one of the boring ones – the one with the surprising result is going to be published.

A basic concept with science is that an experiment must be repeatable by other scientists before the results can be considered valid.  This is to prevent unrelated factors (such as human error) from creating the result. 

The same concept applies to scientific studies.  When one study appears to shop a certain result, it’s very difficult to know of this is causation or merely correlation.  It’s possible that the result could be attributed to other factors, or even to selection bias.  In our hypothetical orange juice – cancer study, perhaps the control group and experimental group were located in different geographical areas.  The OJ drinkers received treatment at one hospital whereas the non-drinkers received treatment at another.  It’s possible that the OJ doctors were simply more effective in treating cancer, and that the orange juice really had no effect.

In a nutshell, exercise caution when you read about scientific studies.  Check to see if there have been other studies on the topic, and check to see what the results of those studies were.  Look at the entire body of work on the topic, in other words, and not just one study.  We’re in an age where we research topics with just a click of the mouse.  Put that power to work for you and become more educated on the topics you care about!

Much Ado About Nothing???

Golden Tate’s Disputed “Catch”

Ok, I get it, the “replacement” NFL officials are very poor. It is difficult to watch some of the calls, incorrect rules interpretations, and general comedy of errors that are occurring in many of the NFL games. It is clear that these guys are over their heads.

Last night might be just the straw the “real” officials are waiting for to end the lock out.

In case you missed it, or have not read a newspaper or listened to any sports talk radio or television today, the final play of the Seattle Seahawks vs Green Bay Packers game came down to a last second heave from Rookie quarterback Russell Wilson in the general direction of wide receiver Golden Tate on the final play of the game. The problem is that Green Bay Packer defensive back M.D. Jennings actually fell to the ground with possession of the ball, and then Tate – basically reached in with one arm and got a bit of the football and then the official on the field ruled it a simultaneous catch.

I remind you that I have no allegiance to either team, but I am sure the Packers and Seahawks fans see this play each in their own completely different light.

Where does this one rank?

If you look at sports in general there are a ton of lousy calls that could determine the outcome of games, or even titles or seasons for that matter. Here is a short list of my personal top 5 worst calls ever, but remember, my views are tainted by my team allegiances as well. Not sure where this call ranks on an all-time list, and you might get other arguments but here are my personal top 5 worst calls of all time.

1. Penn State vs. Nebraska – Beaver Stadium – 1982 – Keep in mind I was 12 years old at the time, and this one is still blazed into my memory 30 years later. During the final drive was aided by a Nebraska personal foul on the kickoff and the “questionable” call on the 15-yard sideline pass to tight end Mike McCloskey. Both McCloskey and Penn State Quarterback Todd Blackledge admitted years later what all Husker fans already knew long ago. He was like 2 yards out of bounds when he caught the ball to give them a first down and keep the drive alive. Then Blackledge hits Kirk Bowman on a catch…errrrr…trap….in the end zone to seal the win with 4 seconds left. Penn State eventually wins the National Title that Osborne should have garnered.
2. Colorado’s 5th Down – One of the worst ever (obviously or it would not be on my list!). Colorado is awarded not 4 but 5 chances to punch it in after a first and goal to beat Missouri on the last play of the game and go on to claim a share of the National Title. I would call them cheaters, but the officials made them do it!
3. Put Some Time Back on the Clock…TWICE – The U.S.S.R. somehow gets the officials to put time back on the clock – – not once, but TWICE at the end of the game allowing the Soviet Union a couple of do-overs to score a basket at the buzzer and win the gold medal with a 50-49 victory in the final of the 1972 Games.
4. Missouri’s Loved or Hated Man – The most controversial call in World Series history, first base umpire, Don Denkinger calls the Royals’ Jorge Orta safe at first base in the ninth inning of Game 6 of the 1985 Series against the Cardinals. Replays clearly show that St. Louis pitcher Todd Worrell clearly beat Orta to the bag. Denkinger’s call allows a two run rally by the Kansas City Royals who then pull off a 2-1 victory. Kansas City goes on to win the Series in seven games.
5. Head or Tails? – The easiest call in any football game is the coin flip, unless you are NFL official Phil Luckett. During the 1999 Thanksgiving Day game between the Steelers and Lions the teams come out for the overtime coin flip. Steelers captain Jerome Bettis calls “tails”, but Luckett hears “heads”.  I can still see the looks on Jerome Bettis’s face…”WTF” – The Lions win the toss and go on to win the game. The NFL changes its procedures forever after this monumental turkey day gaffe.

Bottom line when it comes to what all of us fans think is poor officiating…..If you don’t like getting screwed at the end of the game, play better and don’t put yourself in a position to get screwed.

Stat of the Weak (weak)

Johnny Goodman’s Fantasy Football teams, known for countless league titles and copious amounts of lifetime earnings are a combined 0-6 to start the year.

Heisman Trophy Watch

• Nick Florence – QB – Baylor – Can the Bears pull off back to back Heisman winners. Ni-Flo is on fire leading the NCAA is total offense with 174 rushing and 1004 passing in just 3 games.
• Stephon Jefferson – RB – Nevada. Explodes onto the list. Through four games he has 11 rushing TD’s and 699 yards rushing to lead the nation in yards per game rushing.
• Rakeem Cato – QB – Marshall – Stays on the list leading the nation in passing with 10 TD’s and just 2 interceptions along with 1481 yards through 4 games.
• Geno Smith – QB – West Virginia – Should be able to continue to pad his numbers in the normally wide open Big XII. Barely behind Florence of Baylor in total offense per game at this point, but has a much stronger supporting cast than the other candidates on this list.

Stay Classy Nashville, Tennessee (Golden Tate’s Hometown).
 

This is my annual rant about college football ranking. The two major systems that are used until the 6th week when the BCS system kicks in, are the coaches poll and the sports writer poll. Both of them are based on the feelings of the voters and are heavily stilted toward the fashionable conferences. Admittedly, the major conferences do each have 3 or even 4 good teams. I also do not have a problem with the polls being the opinions of the voters. What I complain about the is the inconsistency that this method brings. A team can win and still drop in the polls. A team can get pounded and only drop a few spots. The thing that gets to me is when teams with several losses is still ranked above an undefeated team. Now we are only in the second week of the season, so there are no apparent problems yet.

When we finally get the BCS system results, the rankings get much more stable. An opinion pole is include in that system along with a computer poll and several statistical polls. As the polls progress, there is still a bias towards certain conferences based on “strength of schedule”. So if you play teams that are ranked, you go up in ranking. If a lot of the teams in your conference are ranked, you guaranteed a ranked position. The result of this type system is the insanity of having a national championship game featuring two teams from the same conference.

There are 12 conferences plus some independent schools eligible for the BCS. A true playoff would have the 12 conference winners contending for the championship. To be fair to the independent teams, there would have to be some “wild card” invitations for those independent teams that are still highly ranked. This would allow teams who are blocked out of BCS bowls because of the polls to have a chance. If there is that big of a talent difference, then the playoff games will just be warm ups for the big boys. If the opinions are incorrect, then the smaller schools will have a chance to prove them wrong.

Is there a perfect polling method? Probably not. My rant is a reaction to the ridiculous statements by sports casters with the new playoff proposal that two slots should be reserved for the South East Conference. One of the problems, or benefits, of the bowl system is automatic bids. For the national championship, all positions should be earned, not awarded. The four team playoff is a good start, let’s not mess it up immediately by determining who should be in it at the beginning of the season. The SEC is good right now, but that is the genius of the conference system, you determine a single champion. Then you have the various champions compete for the right to claim the top spot for the year, just like the pros.

My only complaint about the Olympics is that they happen once every 4 years (or technically once every two years if you figure the alternating winter and summer games….but who is counting)

The games are well underway now in London, with many medals already handed out.

NBC has 7 different stations on my television availability to view differing venues from the Olympics. These dwindle throughout the day, as the events on these stations by and large are shown live as they happen. NBC in an attempt to maximize viewers and advertising revenue does however hold back not showing some of the events and keeps those aside for the telecast every night on the “main” network channel.

The time difference depending on what part of the United States you live is a minimum of 5 hours. That means by the time you are seeing any of the events in prime time television, the athletes are already asleep for the night. (Assuming they are not partying it up in the Olympic Village that is)

Many question in this age of Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites, if this is necessary. The athletes competing in the events posting pictures and sharing results immediately as things happen. Most all of the major web bases news sites – USA Today, Yahoo, Fox Sports, etc. all report the action as it happens, meaning anyone looking at their computer at work throughout the day is already going to know the outcome before they get home for the evening.

While many may like to know the results as they occur… I am too old school. I remember the excitement of watching the 1980 Men’s Hockey Team, seeing Bruce Jenner finish the mile and Nadia landing a perfect ten on our family’s less than perfect grainy console television set back in 1976.

These events were long done and over, but unless you had someone calling you from the event, or had a real fast carrier pigeon, you didn’t know any better until you watched in on television that night.

For that reason, I take a 17 day hiatus from any of the internet sites with the sole purpose of keeping it surprise for me and my family as we watch the coverage after dinner each evening.

I prefer to yell at the TV as if I am part of the action. I swear those swimmers can hear me in the crowd.

Speaking of yelling….

Was Jordyn Wieber robbed of a spot in the all-around finals?

One of the best interviews I have seen on Olympic coverage is Bela Karolyi being very outspoken about the fact that only two gymnasts are allowed from each country to qualify for the gymnastic all around finals. 24 gymnasts qualify to the all- around but only two are allowed from country. This on the heels of reigning world all- around champion Jordyn Weiber being knocked out by two of her other teammates,

“What a travesty!” Karolyi said in an interview. “How someone can afford to cut one of the best gymnasts?”

“But that is not the reason. How can it be a reason?” Karolyi, who coached teams from Romania and the U.S. to Olympic gold, said of the rule. “To eliminate somebody because a teammate beat her. Still among the first four gymnasts in the world, and still you’re eliminated?”

Bob Costas did his best to keep Karolyi from leaping out of his chair, but Bela is entertaining regardless if you agree with him or not.

Costas used the line to compare the “two per country” limit as not allowing the third best team in the ACC to make the NCCA tournament.

Maybe a bit of a stretch in terms of an analogy, but it is about the best I have heard.

Bottom line every Olympic Games has winners and losers. Great stories and colossal disappointments. Out of adversity many good things happen.

The remaining days of the 30th Olympiad are sure to bring us that if nothing else.

Until Next Time, Stay classy Jordyn Wieber!!!