2010 World Cup Group A Breakdown

By Slate Quicksilver

Group A will fire the opening salvoes in this World’s largest tournament with the first two games. Host South Africa will open the festivities against the seasoned veterans of Mexico and immediately after that, long absent Uruguay will take on powerhouse France later in the evening. It’s not exactly the Group of Death, but it will offer some great games. Here’s a quick breakdown of each team:

South Africa:

For South Africa, their tickets were punched when they won the nomination to host the tournament so we can’t really get a true feel for how they will perform on the world’s biggest stage. They didn’t have to fight their way through the Confederation of African Football qualifying, which has become the third toughest Federation behind Europe and South America. However, if we go by play in previous Cups, there isn’t much to go behind. They have one win in 6 games. Even worse, their best striker, Benni McCarthy isn’t on the roster. If there was any hope for the hosts, it would be that the host countries are almost always boosted by the home crowd cheering them on. To name a few, England, Argentina and France have won in front of their home crowds. In 2002, South Korea (co hosting) came from nowhere and finished 4^th in the whole tournament. Could South Africa follow in their footsteps? Yours truly says an emphatic “No.”

France:

In Germany, during the last Cup, France was a headbutt away from potentially winning the whole thing. OK, maybe not. Barring Zidane’s headbutt, there is still no guarantee Les Bleus would have ripped the net during the remaining overtime or if he were in the shootout, he would have tipped the scales in their favor. But that shows just how close the French were from storming into their mortal enemy’s (Germany) turf and lifting the most coveted prize in sports. Let’s ignore the fact they required the referees to assume temporary blindness to rob the Irish out of a slot in the tournament because a team this talented just needs to be there to be in the running (and remember they had issues qualifying in 2006). The 2010 version of France features a few upgrades from the 2006 team. Thierry Henry has assumed the captain’s armband and the midfield has Jeremy Toulalan and Lassana Diarra making it as solid as any team’s. France is likely to slip by Uruguay and Mexico, but will probably blast South Africa out of the tournament in the final match for the group.

Mexico:

Mexico certainly had to pull a rabbit out of its hat to qualify for the tournament. They only slipped by Jamaica in the 2^nd qualifying round on goal differential and then in the final round of qualifying El Tri needed to shake off a 1-2-0 start of the final round to qualify. Many agree that firing Sven Goran Eriksson in favor of their old coach, Javier Aguirre was the catalyst. Aguirre coached the Mexicans to the 2002 World Cup in similar circumstances: Mexico struggled, Aguirre came in, the ship got straightened and Mexico qualified. Efrain Juarez, Andres Guardado and Giovani dos Santos are the young players to keep an eye on, but Cuauhtemoc Blanco, who has been playing for the last 3 centuries or so, is back with the squad and promises to steady ship manned mostly very young (and skilled) Mexican players. Mexico’s tournament, more than likely, will be a fight with Uruguay. The winner probably will go to the round of 16. But they are playing South Africa in the opening game of the tournament. A South African team hopped up on emotions could be a trap game that could kill Mexico’s chances early.

Uruguay:

In 2001, Uruguay finished 5^th in the CONMEBOL qualifying. This meant they had to have to win a playoff to get in to the tournament, and they didn’t get the job done. In 2005, Uruguay finished 5^th in CONMEBOL qualifying. This meant they had to have to win a playoff to get in to the tournament, and they didn’t get the job done. In 2009, Uruguay finished 5^th in CONMEBOL qualifying. This meant they had to have to win a playoff to get in to the tournament, but this time they got the job done. They knocked Costa Rica with a 1-0 win on the road and then played a safe draw at home to punch their ticket. Luis Suarez and Diego Forlan make up one of the best 1-2 combos at striker and they will the key to how Uruguay performs. Those two scored 12 of Uruguay’s 28 goals in qualifying. Defense, however, is a question mark. La Celeste’s back line gave up 20 goals in qualifying including an embarrassing 4-0 loss at the hands of Brazil at home. As mentioned before, the second slot in this group will probably be decided by the Uruguay-Mexico match. That will be an exciting game and I see Uruguay slipping away in a high scoring game.

Predicted Table:

France 3-0-0

Uruguay 2-1-0

Mexico 1-2-0

South Africa 0-3-0

Who Nat? Tales of Struggling Clubs Doing Well This Year

Posted by Iroquois Plisken

Because I am a sucker for puns, I've made a new feature that will run whenever I think of a team that hasn't done well recently that is presently doing well this year (sorry, Pittsburgh. Probably not you.) The first up in our inaugural series is the namesake, the Washington Nationals.

Impressively enough, the Washington Nationals are sitting above .500 a little more than six weeks into the season. Adam Dunn is doing what he does best - be a three outcome batter. What I find fascinating, though, is where the Nationals offense ranks among the National League clubs. Would you believe that they are presently in the top 50% in average, OPS (and the two feeder categories, OBP and SLG), and in the top 3 of SB? We can probably attribute this to the surprisingly not-shitty play of Cristian Guzman, though to be fair that is mostly based off of his stinky performances in Minnesota. He's been serviceable for the Nats for the last two years.

Their middle of the order is pretty much the same as last year and are producing steadily. Ryan Zimmerman is putting up All-Star numbers (.330, 8 HR, 23 RBI through 37 games). Josh Willingham has been putting up comparable numbers (except average) and getting on base at a steady clip, almost at a Nick Johnson level (.413 OBP). Adam Dunn is, well, the posterchild of consistency. With about a 5% margin of error, his line will look something like 40 HR, 100 RBI, 110 BB, 100 R, and .245 BA. Every year. Some years (like last year), he bucks it up a bit in the batting average department, but you know what you're gonna get.

I think the real story is how the Nats have been winning without vastly improved starting pitching. Can you name the starting 5 for the Nats? I got three before I had to look up the other two. They are

John Lannan (L), Craig Stammen (R), Livan Hernandez (R), Scott Olsen (L), and Luis Atilano (R)

I think the staff of the 1989 Cleveland Indians had more names than this, and they were put together to be the worst team in the majors. You can probably point to Pudge Rodriguez's influence over this staff, as he always seems to coax a little more out of his pitching talent. Nobody on their is going to blow you away with their stuff...yet.

The 900 lb gorilla in the minors is, of course, Stephen Strasburg, destroyer of worlds, pillager of loot, and fast of pitcher. You've heard the hype. If he can come in and be about half as effective as he has been in the minors, the Nats suddenly become an interesting squadron. More interesting than they are now, at least. Add in potentially acquiring Roy Oswalt, as the hot rumor has it, or even Cliff Lee (should the Mariners fall out of it. Don't laugh.) and suddenly the punching bag is firing back with a right cross or two. They already have a strong (albeit overworked) bullpen with Capps and Clippard (7 wins!), and they just added Drew Storen (closer of the future) to get him some experience. A potential rotation of

Oswalt/Lee, Strasburg, Hernandez, Lannan, Olsen

and you might be onto something. Maybe not playoff contention yet, but certainly 70-80 wins.

To top it all off, you're holding the #1 pick with Bryce Harper waiting in the wings. The hype machine is certainly in force for the kid (with help from his official page). A quick YouTube search will bring up his monstrous home runs against clearly inferior competition. He is, no doubt, the most hyped catcher prospect since Joe Mauer (who, apparently, helps people get banned from Mexico). Signability can't be an issue if they got their way with Strasburg.

I'm not sure how long the Nats will remain in contention, but if their good fortune continues, we could see a return to 2005, where they eclipsed the 80 win mark. A little luck with their pitching prospects and potential trade partners and maybe they scuffle for the Wild Card for a couple weeks. I can't think of a Nats fan (I could stop the sentence right here) who would turn that down.

Is baseball back on the Beltway? You're definitely not rushing Storen and Strasburg up to the Majors to rebuild. You want to see what you got and strike while the bats are hot. If nothing else, tune in on or after Memorial Day to see the 100 MPH fastballs cranked out of the park or past some bats. Hopefully Strasburg doesn't aspire to be the next Kirk Hammett and injure himself cranking out some sweet 5 button solos.

Please Move All the Way Down the Row to Make Room for Everyone on the Bandwagon

Posted by Iroquois Plisken

During Cavs/Celts Game 6 (more on that later), sometime during the 4th quarter during a pan to the crowd shot, an eagle eyed cameraman came across this gem of an adolescent.


Yikes. There are many things wrong with this picture. Let's break it down.

1. First, according to my diligent research of the last 20 minutes, this isn't even a jersey they actually wore. According to their press release from their official fan blog (linked here by J.E. Skeets), this is a "special colorized adaption of this season's Hardwood Classics retro uniform." That's a mouthful and a half.

I have no problem with throwback jerseys; some of them are ridiculously cool. Here's one for my team. Here's one that looks even better/more unintentionally hilarious in light of Denver's new stance on marijuana. And who among us wouldn't want to take a walk in this guy's well-traveled, often-replaced-because-he-gambles-them-away shoes? There's even a certain air of vintage about the maroon and gold Cavs jersey.

But, that's not what this kid did.

He has a "throwback" jersey from a year ago with colors that don't even pertain to his team. It was specifically rolled out slightly over a year ago as a marketing ploy. Cool. Though, I suppose he doesn't have a problem with being newly minted because...

2. He's wearing what appears to be a brand new Yankees hat.

Most baseball fans would agree that, up until last year really, there was no reason to wear a Yankees hat if you were jumping on the bandwagon. They hadn't won the World Series since 2000, were in fact defeated in 2001 and 2003, watched their rival Red Sox win two in that timespan, and generally were in a funk (by their standards) since the acquisition of A-Rod. That all changed last year when we now, regrettably, call Alex Rodriguez a World Series champion.

Surely, that young man struggled through 2004 and 2007, most especially 2004. That Dave Roberts steal must have really gotten in his craw to the point where he was teased mercilessly by those kids out on the playground for wearing the loser's colors the next day.

(pausing to recall 1995 Florida/Nebraska and then the next day)

I feel for him. Elementary school children are dicks. I know I was.

Wait, though, that hat is completely new. Nothing indicates it's ever been worn more than a dozen times, which isn't to say that couldn't be the case. Our best guess is that this hat has been worn in relative moderate climes (no sweat markings) and maybe he ran into a door while wearing it (check the discontinuity right over his left eye). I have a theory on why this is, but let me throw in a non-sequitur for a second.

3. Is that Rick Reilly staring all bug-eyed into the great beyond behind that kid? My personal guess is that it isn't, but you could definitely fool a few people at first, second, or even third blush. You could use a little more iodine for your thyroid problem, Mr. Behind-the-Bandwagoner.

Anyhow, my guess as to why the kid is dressing in that otherwise contemptible way for a sports fan to dress is...

4. He's doing it because that's precisely what he's seen LeBron James doing.

I can't begrudge the kid for having a sports hero, or even behaving like a kid does, what with all the marketing susceptibility. I've purchased pairs of basketball sneakers in my day, with my all-time favorite shoe ever being this one (how I wish I could find another pair!). That's not really where I find fault with that picture. I don't even fault LeBron for front-running a little bit, especially in light of his photo with Dr. Dre wearing his Red-Sox emblazoned BEATS headphones (which are a pretty quality product in and of themselves).

I suppose it ultimately boils down to how I feel about the average fan front-running. Yes, this is where a distinction lies. With the advent of free agency (a good thing), it is difficult for us to hold athletes to a strict allegiance standard. The days of playing for one team are very few and far between, and I have all the more respect for those who do stay with one team their whole career. More often than not, changing teams is strictly a business now; there's hardly anyone so affected by sports rivalries that they will refuse to go to a specific team (e.g. Brett Favre/MIN, Johnny Damon/NYY).

But the average fan? Sports is just an outlet, a hobby bordering on a membership in a group. Rarely should it ever be a business decision to abandon a rooting interest. There are a few exceptions that I feel warrant leaving a team, such as complete mismanagement of a team to the point of you renouncing allegiance (the Buffalo Bills would be a sterling example) or inheriting a team from your parents and then moving to a different market thus renouncing your old ties in favor of making new ones to the local team (e.g. someone born in NY who moves to, say, Seattle). These are acceptable reasons, though the latter one must be used with care, lest you find yourself bandwagoning. Military folks probably have a free pass on that, though, so long as they're on active duty.

The point is, I think it's fair to hold the average fan and the average or superstar athlete to a different standard, even if both parties abandoning a team simultaneously would evoke a different reaction from me. I try to live as principled a sports-fan's existence as possible, so maybe it's just me.

For that young man's punishment, he shall be drawn and quartered. Dually and duly noted.


[Ed's note: Wow, that went on longer than I thought. A quick thought about Game 6.]

Last night's game had to be one of the biggest disappointments I've ever experienced for a game in which I had no rooting interest. The game was officially over at the point last night - I want to say 6 minutes left in the 3rd - when Anderson Varejao was allegedly bleeding, stopped playing to attempt to get the clocked stopped while all 9 other players continued to go at it. By my message log, that was about 10:04 PM. I told Slate that I thought I was pressing more than LeBron was; I really was hoping for something to happen, but it didn't. Thus, it was a bigger letdown than usual. I won't pin the loss entirely on LeBron, although he could have been more efficient, his teammates played as if they had no hands.

Congrats to the Celtics; see you on Sunday.

World Cup World Cup World Cup

by Slate Quicksilver

In case you either haven't been watching ESPN in the last year or are like most other Americans, who have anti-soccer logic bias brainchips implanted in their lower cerebellums, the 2010 World Cup from South Africa is about to start in less than one month. July 11th was house the first game: South Africa versus Mexico. From there, world class soccer take place on for an entire month gripping the entire world in a real life human drama that transcends all racial, economic and political boundaries which... blablabla... is generally regarded as the world's biggest sporting event.

Thus I feel it necessary to talk to my American brethren about a few things we need to talk about to clear the air. I will respond to comments made by friends of mine who are not exactly fans of the beautiful game.

Concern #1: "Hey! Beating teams like Guatemala and El Salvador is good! They are Mexican, so they must be good at soccer! But then we go to the World Cup and we do terrible!"

Long Answer: First off, your lack of geographic knowledge is terrible. Watching the World Cup may teach you that yes, China and Japan are different countries and no, everybody who speaks Spanish is not Mexican. Secondly, we qualify by playing only teams in North and Central America (and the Caribbean). That includes teams like Belize, Haiti, Barbados, Bermuda and Montserrat. Yes, Montserrat, that island country that was turned into a fiery hellscape by a volcano that consumed more than half of the island. Yeah, they have a team too. Over in Europe, teams like England had to get through Croatia (ranked #9 in the world) and the Ukraine (ranked #25 in the world) to qualify. The US had to get through Trinidad and Tobago (ranked #91 in the world).

Short Answer: Our qualifying conference is the Sun Belt. Europe is the SEC. South America is the BigXII.

Concern #2: "Soccer is boring."

Long Answer: We all can agree that playoff hockey is about 50000x better than regular season hockey. This is because players are incredibly motivated. The game is faster, passes are crisper, hits are harder and mistakes are magnified so much more than a throwaway game in Nashville in December. World Cup games are played at the highest level of the game you will ever see. Players are playing not just for the pride of their nation, not just for the fact that for some players this is their only shot to prove to the world that they don't deserve to be stuck in playing in the Faroe Islands B League... they are playing because there is no bigger stage. The human drama that unfolds is incredible. Countries most would only here of in 7th grade geography become glorified when they win and countries who are dominant powers are shamed when they are taken down. And forget it when you have country-country drama. When Senegal beat defending champs France in 2002, it was an memorable moment. But then, it was the same Senegal who was under brutal French Colonial rule for centuries, which made the scenario even more earth shattering moment. And hello, the US is playing England to start our campaign on June 12.

Short Answer: International Soccer is 1000000x better than just about any other form of the game.

Concern #3: "I will only watch if we do good."

Long Answer: That could happen. Our team has looked good in qualifying, despite a few bumps, and we almost won the Confederations Cup. We beat former #1 in the world Spain soundly, and then we fought Brazil to a standing eight count until the last 25 minutes. Our team has finally embraced the international game, rather than our old style. **ALERT ALERT ALERT REAL SOCCER BREAKDOWN COMING IN 3... 2... 1...*** Our country has seen a shift in our players. We are sending more and more players overseas. That is a good thing. Learning to play in the British, German, Spanish, French and Portuguese leagues is positively fantastic for our players. As such, we have dumped the old style that we used to play: a slow build-up with players executing exact plays with little individualism. Think wishbone option football from the 1950s. We have now embraced the world scene's style of creativity, individualism and playing more physically. That means we aren't just putting our behemoths on defense and our speedsters at striker. We are playing a more open offensive style that attacks rather than a reactionary counterattack "offense" that requires other teams to make mistakes for us to capitalize. That old style worked fine against the likes of Haiti and Panama, meaning we would qualify, but against teams like the Netherlands, who do not make mistakes, we would get torched repeated. Anyway, our defense is strong and seasoned. Our offense is lead by a few world class players. Success isn't just possible, it is expected.

Short Answer: We are ranked #14 in world right now.

In the coming weeks I will run you through previews of each group and each team. The day before the tournament starts, predicted will be wildly thrown around.

The Longest Awaited Coronation Since the United Kingdom

Posted by Iroquois Plisken

Having played around with the NBA Playoff Predictor on ESPN for a time (with it being surprisingly cooperative), I got a sense of what the numbers (at least pre-playoff numbers) are saying about the 6 possible NBA Finals matches. To wit,

The Ratings Nightmare - ORL/PHX - 77% win percentage / 23% win percentage
The Rematch - ORL/LAL - 57 / 43
The Underdog Special - BOS/PHX - 36/64
The Two Years Ago Rematch - BOS/LAL - 36/64
The Curselifter - CLE/PHX - 64/36
The Ratings Bonanza - CLE/LAL - 60/40

A couple of things jump out at me:

1. These have to be pre-playoff numbers, even though the odds are continually updated with every passing game. You really expect me to believe that the Suns have a marginal chance with the way they're playing?

2. Steve Nash wants to eat your brains.
(Note: Picture only altered slightly.)

3. Cleveland must be a better team than they showed last night, which is what I mainly want to discuss.

By now, you surely fall into a camp about the "LeBacle". You know, the game yesterday where LeBron looked human and we all sorta felt bad for him, but not really because a) you're either an opposing team fan whose team may in some way benefit from Cleveland's absence in the playoffs or b) he's made a ton more money and is way more successful than you in every way already.

Myself, I fall into A. Or so I thought. If LeBron is as badly hurt as his performance showed me yesterday, then maybe it's more advantageous to meet the Cavs in a rematch. Mo Williams is providing about as much resistance as a turnstile right now at the PG spot, where Jameer has been dynamic so far in the postseason, a stark contrast to facing Rajon Rondo, who (while talented) has learned well from his days as a Kentucky Wildcat and Boston Celtic in becoming a world-class punk. More on that point here.

However, Boston's due to decline at some point. Orlando has a counter for Pierce and Allen, if Vince decides to show up. Perhaps the only more bullish C in the league would be opposite Dwight (Perkins). There's considerably more depth on the bench than last year. Jameer is effective enough on D to slow Rondo considerably.

Point is, Orlando is looking good to make a return trip to the Finals, no matter who is standing in the way. 27-3 since March 1, 14 game win streak, 8 playoff game win streak. There's lots to like about this team. All 5 starters have yet to show up in the same game and they've got answers for the adversity they've yet to face. I like them to win it as much as the numbers do.

I confess I don't know enough about the West Coast teams remaining. I know the Lakers were looking like garbage for a time and put it together against an overmatched Utah squad (who played LIGHTS OUT in that round). Phoenix finally got past that persistent roadblock known as San Antonio (the last night of the Spurs dynasty) and generally looks like a championship caliber team.

For the record, I think we get the Ratings Nightmare matchup in the Finals. What that indicates is that I, like many others, jumped the gun in giving Cleveland that long-awaited championship at the trade deadline. I think the thing that is most surprising is not LeBron's injury (alleged or otherwise) but in how Antawn Jamison (the big acquisition) has wilted more than Vince Carter did (is?). His numbers look good, not great, but his best game came in the Cavaliers blowout, when the outcome of the game wasn't in doubt. In other games, he's been putting up an average of 10 points, 6 boards, and 4 fouls. Not good for the supposed 2nd option.

At any rate, be sure to tune in to Game 6 on Thursday. I fully expect the Cavs to win, get back to Cleveland, and then get kicked in the balls for a crushing presumed end to the LeBron era.

Stupidity in Spades

by Slate Quicksilver

We missed a great in the month we took off. Anything is game in this opening salvo, but of all the things that occurred during our brief hiatus, nothing was more blatantly stupid than the whole uproar about Ben Roethlisberger. Nothing. Not the people who thought Tiger Woods's poor play was due to him not getting enough endorphins to his brain from less sex, not the NCAA basketball people flipping the general public and their mid majors the finger by increasing the field not to 96, but to 68... not even the return of Pacman Jones to the Bengals, who are clearly bored with winning... nothing has been as low grade, low frequency, single digit, abjectly asinine (good word) than what he has done and how the public has responded.

Sports Illustrated just pumped out a story that filled the front page and about 6 pages in the back of their latest issue trying to sum the whole thing up and perform a Sherlock Holmes-ian point by point breakdown to finger the culprit. Other sports outlets ranging from local talk show hosts to world-wide leaders in sports to tmz/sports blogs have exploded with coverage. By the night that Commissioner Goodell brought down the suspension, it wasn't just ESPN bringing you coverage, every news outlet in America was on it and even the BBC was covering the news.

The icing on all of those cakes came in the form of an article with a so many clueless stabs written under the guise of what people who think they are smart go crazy for: SCIENCE. I, for one, love science. Science is awesome. But there are some instances where science cannot explain things. No, I'm not talking about ghosts or aliens or God appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich in Tupelo, Mississippi. Science can explain those things easily. I'm talking about being unable to explain why a successful, young and rich and privileged person would turn into a douchenozzle of epic proportions. Science can't explain that.

A comparison to this can be found in the world of "Natural Cures." This guy, individually, has made a fortune beyond any of our wildest dreams preying not on the stupid, but on the semi-intelligent, by giving you half facts and circular logic to make you think that herpes can be cured with seaweed extract. The placebo effect is his lifeblood. Although I have an axe to grind with this guy (certain grandparents of mine spend half of their fixed income on his books and "cures" but are just as bad off health wise as they would be without him), he is the best comparison to someone trying to use SCIENCE to link a guy's poor behavior decisions.

Using the logic of "Guy gets in accident without helmet" + "Guy turns out to be a bit of a prick" + "Guy gets in trouble" + "Potential frontal lobe injury from accident" + "Frontal lobe injuries can lead to behavior swings", our wonderful author says that Big Ben has gone wild because of his head injuries. Correlation, in his world, does imply causation much to every statistician, scientist, lawyer and economist's chagrin.

What is the worst of all of this is that he brings in a doctor to explain it. A neurosurgeon, to be specific. The good doctor explains that frontal lobe injuries can cause issues because that's the part of the brain where the "decision center" is. "A person with damage might not read the intentions of a woman at a bar very well, for example," Grafman says. "They might succumb to more primitive urges instead of saying, 'I shouldn't do this because it affects my career.'" This attempt to legitimize his claims by having a doctor say something that backs him up makes the almost smart person jump out and think "Hey! I know things too! I know what a frontal lobe is, this is interesting. I will read on because I am getting smarter!" So now we have what is a stab in the dark claim backed up with words that don't mean much: "They might succumb..." Just like the snake oil salesman who makes you think that eating portobello mushrooms reduces your chance of kidney failure, a stab in the dark is made and the reader/viewer is the one who decides "Is that legit?" Having a doctor say something backing it up, that must make it seem legit (0:18 mark).

In the end, the article tries to link the accident to his behaviors. What it doesn't do is what many other articles, posts and tv segments dont do: blame it on him! Brain injuries, entitlement and being young and rich are all things that are blamed. I will add one more thing to that list. The dude needs to grow up. That's all. There is a whole class of gentlemen who are between 20 and 30 who would basically do the same exact thing that the QB for the Pittsburgh Steelers would: go nuts. It's about not wanting to grow up. It's about having the disposable income and lots of time on your hand. It's because you are athletic, have money and fame and having those things will have women throwing themselves at you anytime and anywhere... and knowing it. That's what it's about. The fact that this doesn't happen more is surprising. And the fact that it is a two time Super Bowl winning QB makes it bigger than it probably should be.

He doesn't need to be suspended and he doesn't need to go to "rehab" or seek "counseling." He needs someone to whack him upside the head and say "Look Asshat, you have the life billions would kill for. You are pissing it away trying to hit on college girls. Go find one girl who won't care if it's an open relationship and for God's sake if you get drunk, do it at home." That's what he needs and nothing more.

Attention

by Staff

Ladies and gentlemen, we have earth shattering news: As of tomorrow this fine site will be back up and firing on all cylinders (all one of them). Life has returned to normal for our writers. Iroquois has returned from his self imposed exile St. Helena's Island over the allocation of proper nouns in Scrabble. Slate completed his circumnavigation of the world on his boat equipped only with a chronometer, small emergency kit, light fishing pole and a drop dead gorgeous young woman of Brazilian/German descent. Annie is in an undisclosed location but has re-established contact with her superiors. And Red helped complete 15 or more foreclosures on struggling middle class families in south Florida and is ready to be a human being again. (Fun Fact: Only one of those is actually maybe true!)

We are going back to that time honored tradition of structure here:
Iroquois has the site in his capable hands on Mondays and Wednesdays.
Slate will drive the site on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Annie will show up whenever she pleases.
Red will write something that we will get it up after 3 days of editing.

So folks, tell all of your friends: "Potluck Sports is back!" And for your prize: An Early 90s megababe!

She knows we're back and is all dressed up for the occasion

Tomorrow, Slate's going to go nuts over how powerfully stupid the whole Ben Roethlisberger situation has become.