The State of the Union

I know I'm a little late on this, but did anybody watch the State of the Union address on Wednesday? I didn't watch it this year, but I did one year. I believe it was in 2005, back when I sort of cared about politics. Now, five short years later, I couldn't care less.

I took two political science classes, one in the fall of 2004 and the other in the beginning of 2005 (what was considered the winter semester). I thought it would be fun to take the classes during a presidential election year, and it was, for the most part. Looking back on it though, the teacher had a huge liberal slant. At that time though, I didn't even really know what being liberal, or conservative for that matter, meant. I was young and naive, if you will. I'm still young and naive, for the most part, but I guess not as young and naive.

Anyway, when I watched it back in 2005, I could barely make it through. For starters, the president would say something, and then it was as if the he had a clapper attached to him to make him talk again (CLAP ON, CLAP OFF, CLAP ON, CLAP OFF, THE CLAPPER). He would talk, then pause, congress would stand up and clap for what felt like an eternity, then stop all of a sudden and the cycle would repeat. I bet if you took out the clapping, the speech would have lasted half as long! And when the president was actually talking, you never got anything out of it. It was full of sound and fury, but signified nothing, to butcher a quote from Shakespeare. And this has nothing to do with who the president was in 2005. I'm sure the State of the Unions speech from president Obama was the same rhetorical clapfest as the one I watched given by president Bush.

And another thing, does the State of the Union really have to be on every major network? I mean really? In this day and age of the Internet, and 24/7 news stations, why does it have to be on every freaking channel? Now, I know it only interrupts the regularly scheduled programming for about an hour on one day a year, and I don't even watch much television myself, but that isn't the point. Why does it have to be on every flipping channel? Why?!?! It says in the constitution that the president is supposed to give a State of the Union address to congress. Well, he can give the State of the Union address to congress, and if people want to watch it they can, but it doesn't need to be on every channel. Rotate it between the major networks each year like they do the Super Bowl, put it on the internet, and you should be golden. Anyone that wants to watch it will watch it, and anyone who doesn't want to watch it can avoid it more easily.

Well, those are my thoughts on the State of the Union. Nobody cares what I think anyway, so there you go. I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut, to butcher another quote that wasn't from Shakespeare this time. I've been doing a lot of sports posts lately, so I figured I'd change it up a little with this. I hope you enjoyed it.

And then there was...one?

Well, actually four, but I'm going to eliminate the other three and explain my reasoning for it. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, please read on. I'll give you a hint though, it's about the Detroit Lions and the Super Bowl.

With the Saints making the Super Bowl this year, only four teams remain that have never played in the game: Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars. Right off the bat, you can forgive the Jacksonville Jaguars for never making the Super Bowl. They have only been around since 1995, so they have only had 15 seasons to do it. So, it is understandable that they have never played in one yet. They don't deserve the dubious distinction (holy alliteration Batman!) and can be eliminated from this list for now.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "Why didn't he eliminate the Houston Texans first?" Well, you would be right in thinking that, but I'll tell you why I didn't. While it is true that the Texans have only been in the league since 2002, they used to have a team called the Houston Oilers. And what happened to the Houston Oilers? Well, they moved to Tennessee in 1997 and became the Tennessee Oilers (in 1999, they changed the name to the Tennessee Titans). As you may recall, the Titans lost in the Super Bowl in an epic game against the St. Louis Rams in 1999. So, as far as I'm concerned, a team from Houston has played in the Super Bowl.

That same logic can also be applied to the Cleveland Browns, but it is a case that is a little more confusing. The Cleveland Browns franchise started in 1946, but their owner, Art Modell, decided it would be a good idea to move the team after the 1995 season. This, of course, created a shitstorm in Cleveland and the NFL awarded the city a "new" team with the same name, scheduled to resume play in the 1999 season. For all intents and purposes, the Cleveland Browns were "deactivated" at the end of the 1995 season and "reactivated" starting with the 1999 season. So, what happened to the team formally known as the Cleveland Browns? They moved to Baltimore as an "expansion" team, even though all of the then current Browns players and personnel remained, and became the Baltimore Ravens (Fun fact: after the 1983 season, the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis). Well, following the trend set by the Tennessee Titans, the Baltimore Ravens soon played in (and won) a Super Bowl in 2000. So, in my opinion, a team from Cleveland has played in the Super Bowl, with all due respect to the real Cleveland Browns.

And then there was one. That's right, number zero in your Super Bowl programs and number one in my heart, the Detroit Lions. And what makes matters worse is that the Lions have won just a single playoff game since 1957 (the year the Lions last won a championship). That's one playoff win in over 50 years, for those of you keeping score at home. Compare that to the team I forgave above and you begin to release just how pathetic the Lions really are. In 1996, the Jacksonville Jaguars won two playoff games in just their second season of existence. This was the same year that another recent expansion team, the Carolina Panthers, also won two playoff games (in their second season as well). So, as you can plainly see, the Detroit Lions are truly in a class of their own. And that is a class of one, riding the short bus to school, sitting in a corner with a crooked dunce hat on and blabbering about how the government is trying to broadcast signals to aliens off of their cavity fillings. That's the Detroit Lions for you, a team I love for some strange reason.

Well, that's all I have to say about that. I'm going to leave you with a list I made while researching this topic. This is a list of all the current NFL teams and their Super Bowl appearances (please note that wins are in bold).

National Football Conference

NFC East

• Dallas Cowboys: 1970, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1992, 1993, 1995
• NY Giants: 1986, 1990, 2000, 2007
• Philadelphia Eagles: 1980, 2004
• Washington Redskins: 1972, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1991

NFC North

• Chicago Bears: 1985, 2006
• Detroit Lions: N/A
  
• Green Bay Packers: 1966, 1967, 1996, 1997
• Minnesota Vikings: 1969, 1973, 1974, 1976

NFC South

• Atlanta Falcons: 1998
• Carolina Panthers: 2003
• New Orleans Saints: (2009)
• Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 2002

NFC West

• Arizona Cardinals: 2008
• San Francisco 49ers: 1981, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1994
• Seattle Seahawks: 2005
• St. Louis Rams: 1979**, 1999, 2001

American Football Conference

AFC East

• Buffalo Bills: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993
• Miami Dolphins: 1971, 1972, 1973, 1982, 1984
• New England Patriots: 1985, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007
• NY Jets: 1968

AFC North

• Baltimore Ravens: 2000
• Cincinnati Bengals: 1981, 1988
• Cleveland Browns: N/A
  
• Pittsburgh Steelers: 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1995, 2005, 2008

AFC South

• Houston Texans: N/A
• Indianapolis Colts: 1968*, 1970*, 2006, (2009)
• Jacksonville Jaguars: N/A
• Tennessee Titans: 1999

AFC West

• Denver Broncos: 1977, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1997, 1998
• Kansas City Chiefs: 1966, 1969
• Oakland Raiders: 1967, 1976, 1980, 1983***, 2002
• San Diego Chargers: 1994

* In these two years, they were the Baltimore Colts
** In this year, they were the Los Angeles Rams (see below)
*** In this year, they were the Los Angeles Raiders (so even L.A., who currently doesn't have an NFL team, has a Super Bowl win and another appearance)

2009: Detroit Sports Year In Review

The year, 2009. The city, Detroit. The subject, sports. 2009 will go down as one of the most disappointing years in Detroit sports history. I've only been around for about 25 of those years, and not really an avid sports fan for the first ten or so of them, so forgive me if I'm being overly dramatic, but 2009 was the worst sports year of my life.

It all started at the end of 2008, in November. I know this is supposed to be about 2009, but I'm providing you with a little bit of context. The Pistons traded away my favorite player, Chauncey Billups (and Antonio McDyess), to the Denver Nuggets for Allen Iverson (whom I can't stand). At the time, a lot of people were excited about the trade. And I'm not a huge basketball fan or anything, but I wasn't happy about the trade at all. More on the Pistons later though.

Also in 2008, at the end of December, the Detroit Lions did the unthinkable. After going 4-0 in the preseason, the Lions finished the regular season 0-16. A perfect season, only in reverse. In a league where the expression any given Sunday reigns supreme, where a bad team can sneak up on a mediocre/good team and stumble into a victory on any given Sunday, the Detroit Lions couldn't even do that once. If Detroit sports fans only knew that this was just the beginning of their year of discontent.....

Fast forward to the end of April 2009. The Detroit Pistons were swept by the Cleveland Cavaliers in the first round of the NBA playoffs. After going to the Eastern Conference Finals for six straight years, the Pistons were bounced in the first round of the playoffs. Like I said, I'm not a big basketball fan, so this wasn't really all that disappointing to me, but I'm sure it was to a lot of fans around Detroit. And what's even worse is the Pistons currently. They have lost 13 straight games, with their last win occurring on December 12th, 2009. When will the suffering end?

Moving on to more pain and disappointment. It's the middle of June 2009. The Detroit Red Wings are in the Stanley Cup Finals again against the Pittsburgh Penguins, looking to repeat. With the first two games in Detroit, the Wings jump out to a 2-0 series lead. Then they travel to Pittsburgh for two games and the series is tied 2-2 after that. The next game is in Detroit, and Detroit wins it, so the series is 3-2 Wings now. Then they go to Pittsburgh again for a game, while visions of sugar plums danced in their heads. And by sugar plums, I mean Stanley Cups. But no, they lose that game, so the series is now tied at 3-3. If you've been paying attention at all, you might have noticed a pattern by now. The home team seems to be winning all the home games. So it stands to reason that since the next game is in Detroit, the Red Wings win game seven. You would be wrong. After not showing up for the first two periods of game seven, and allowing some guy named Maxime Talbot (a guy whose name sounds like something a woman would put between her legs during that time of the month) to score two goals, the Red Wings finally decide to show up for the third period. Too little, too late though. The Wings score one goal, and almost tie it up with seconds left, but don't. The Detroit Red Wings lose to the Pittsburgh Penguins in game seven of the 2009 Stanley Cup Finals. Somebody shoot me please.

But that was just the midpoint of a year that had more disappointments in store for the fans of Detroit. It is now the beginning of September 2009. After sweeping the Tampa Bay Rays in Tampa Bay, the Detroit Tigers have a seven game lead over the Minnesota Twins in the central division. With 27 games left, the Tigers have a seven game lead over the Twins. It's looking good, right? Wrong. With seven games remaining, the Tigers lead the Twins by two games, with an important four game series against the Twins coming up next. Well, the Tigers somehow split those four games with the Twins, and their lead is still two games with three to play. So the Tigers either have to win two games, or win one game and the Twins lose one game, or hope the Twins lose two games for the Tigers to win the division. A virtual lock, right? Wrong. The Tigers can only win one game against the lowly Chicago White Sox, and the Twins sweep their last three games against the Kansas City Royals, so the regular season ends with the Tigers and Twins tied for the central division title. As you may or may not know, in baseball, there is a one-game playoff to determine the division winner. And if you had no rooting interest in the game, it was truly a great game. However, it was not a great game if you were a Tigers' fan because the Tigers lost the game in extra innings. I was going to post more about how big of a fuck up Miguel Cabrera was during that series against the White Sox, but I don't think my blood pressure can handle it at this point.

Could the year get any worse if you are a fan of the Tigers? You obviously haven't been paying very close attention to this post if you think it can't get any worse. On December 8th, 2009, a day that will live in infamy, at least in my mind, the Detroit Tigers traded away one of their best players, Curtis Granderson, to the most hated team in all of sports, the New York Yankees. Is this really happening? Please tell me I'm dreaming or on some sort of Bizzaro world where the sky is green and it rains skittles. Actually, that wouldn't be so bad. But really? Did the Tigers really just trade one of their best players to the Yankees? Yes, in fact, they did. And I already dedicated a post to this, so please scroll down and read that if you missed it, because I don't think I can handle reliving that again.

And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the 2009 Detroit Lions. It is January 3rd, 2010, the day of the last game played by the Detroit Lions. I know that their last game wasn't played in 2009, but for all intents and purposes, it was the end of the shitty sports year that was 2009. The Lions finished the year with a lose to the Chicago Bears, and their final record was 2-14. So yes, the Lions still blow. Nothing more to say about them really, other than that. They weren't as bad as the 2008 Lions, but how could they be any worse than 0-16? And hey, even if they did go 0-16 again, at least Matt Millen is gone. That at least gives me some hope that the future is...not as dim as it once was.

Well, that was my post detailing the 2009 year in sports for Detroit. I hope you enjoyed it, and even if you don't like sports, I hope it at least gave you some perspective of what it was like to be a Detroit sports fan in 2009. Here's hoping 2010 isn't as bad as 2009, but it's not looking too hot right now....

Happy New Year!

I know I haven't blogged in about a month, so here I am again. Not that I've been overly busy or anything, but it was just the holiday season. That isn't really the reason I haven't blogged though, I just haven't had the motivation to do it lately. I guess my New Year's Resolution could be to blog more, but I don't do resolutions. As my friend Ryan Smith would say, they are for jerks and lesbians. I would like to blog more though, even though like five people read this, so we'll see how that goes.

Anyways, I don't have much to post as of right now. I want to do a "2009: Detroit Sports Year in Review" post, but that requires more time than I'm willing to put into an entry right now. Hopefully I'll get around to it before the end of 2010 though.

Speaking of 2010, how do you say it? Do you say "two thousand (and) ten" or "twenty ten." I personally think "twenty ten" sounds better, but I'd be interested to know what people think. The reason I think that is because this is the first year since 1999 that we can say it like that. Or did you say that you were going to party like it's "one thousand nine hundred (and) ninety-nine" in 1999? It's been ten years and I've kind of missed saying it like "nineteen ninety-nine." And I know people are now conditioned to say it like "two thousand (and) [blank]," after doing it for ten years, but to me, you can only get away with that for the first ten years of a century. After that, you have to start calling your years like Chad "Ochocinco" Johnson. I guess it's all just personal preference though, and it doesn't really matter in the end, so what are your thoughts?