I Sing the Formula Electric (Mostly)

It's occurred to me just today that after months and months of hearing about Formula E, the FIA's new electric formula car racing series, we are now just mere days away from the first event. Testing has taken place, the teams have (mostly) named their drivers, and as far as all the pre-event publicity goes, it sounds like things are actually going to go down in Beijing this weekend. As I tend to do with most new things, I haven't jumped onto the bandwagon with both feet (I hardly think this is going to replace F1, as I've seen in some suggest, though I could see the September through June calendar making it a de-facto latter day A1GP during the normal racing offseason months), but I am very, very curious to see how things go.

I've been spurred into writing a little something before the Beijing debut by a columnist that I usually enjoy, Peter M. De Lorenzo, who seems to have eaten a giant bowl of grumpy flakes over the weekend, or possibly a mostly silent electric car ran over his foot recently. Whatever the case, PMD not only isn't bullish about Formula E, he basically seems to be rooting for it to fail all together, which seems awfully mean spirited and unnecessary, if you ask me.

(A word of full disclosure right here: one of the major backers of the Formula E series is Renault, who is providing the powertrain for the Formula E cars, along with most of the technical support for the cars. I work for Nissan, who is a corporate allied partner with Renault. So, yes, while I suppose I probably hope that Formula E succeeding means that Nissan might sell an extra Leaf electric vehicle or two, I've yet to have a single conversation with anybody at my workplace about Formula E. I sort of suspect that 99.9% of the people at my office don't even know that it exists, and don't care about it one way or the other. Believe you me, this is coming from a standpoint of "I like racing" much, much more than a standpoint of "I hope somebody makes money". I'm certain that there are far more effective ways for a company to make money than by supporting/advertising in a burgeoning, mostly unknown racing series. I just like racing.)

A criticism that I've heard, and that PMD somewhat addresses by pointing out the billed "sustainability" of Formula E, is that this is some sort of future "replacement" for Formula 1. Oh, my. Um, no way. First of all, Formula 1 has worked on its own "sustainability" this year by introducing the hybrid-turbocharged-V6 formula for this year (which has been pretty darned effective, in my opinion, producing similar lap times to last year, at about 30-35% less fuel use...this is a whole other topic, though). If F1 is positioning itself for the future, then why would the FIA feel the need to position Formula E to "take over" at some point in the distant future? Secondly, motor/battery technology in this type of application (high power/low weight/semi-reasonable endurance) is basically in its infancy. The cars are going to be a fraction as quick as Formula 1, though to my eyeball, they don't look all THAT slow to me.

No, Formula E is going to be its own thing, not replacing any other existing thing. Really, the argument here is: "something new" or "no new thing"? I'll take the "something new", personally. It gives me something to watch in the off-season. So, what we're getting is a slew of recognizable name drivers (Bruno Senna, Nicolas Prost, Sebastien Buemi, Jarno Trulli, Nick Heidfeld, Stephane Sarrazin, Jaime Alguersuari, Sam Bird, Karun Chandhok, Oriol Servia, Nelson Piquet Jr., Lucas di Grassi, Katherine Legge, Franck Montagny, and others) for teams that many of us have already seen elsewhere (Andretti Autosport and Dragon/Virgin Racing, to name a couple), using cars of a sort that we've never really seen before, using what's more or less new technology. And they're going to be run in the middle of large cities, many of which have never had racing on their streets or even anywhere nearby (Beijing, Buenos Aires, Berlin and London, to name a few, though I suppose F1 did run near Buenos Aires years and years ago). Putting racing in these locales near large concentrations of people who have never had first-person contact with racing has the potential to not just attract new fans to Formula E, but new fans to all of motorsport. Can somebody outline for me how exactly THAT is a bad thing?

Are there downsides here? Of course. The battery capacities are not to the point where they can run a full race distance, so each driver will have to hop out of their car and hop into a totally different car around halfway. That's admittedly pretty dorky, and I do hope that the technology improves over the course of the coming seasons in order to eliminate this. And for reasons I can't quite make out, the FIA has decided to introduce the ludicrous "Fan Boost", where people can log into the Formula E website and vote for their favorite driver, who will then get a Mario Kart-esque five second boost of roughly 40 HP. That is ridiculously gimmicky, but at least a five second boost is probably only good for one pass, so the effect should be fairly small.

In the end, what we're getting here is this: a different kind of racing with some very capable drivers, in some different areas where we've never seen racing, using some technology that we've never really seen in race cars before. It's not going to replace F1 or NASCAR or anything else. It's something extra to follow, and maybe even attend, should you feel the urge (though unless you live in or near one of the site cities, I can't really imagine justifying a special trip for a one-day event). If you're half the racing junkie that I am, it's probably worth a look. It's going to be on Fox Sports 1, starting early this Saturday morning (with color commentary from retired IndyCar legend, Dario Franchitti!) at 3:30 AM Eastern, so you may want set your DVR. Will it be a great show or a fiascotastrophe? It's anybody's guess, at this point, but I'll be watching to find out.

Brewers and Matt Garza Get an Early Look at the Cubs' Future

A few months ago I posted about Matt Garza's dumb comments to Jeff Samardzija, who he essentially told to "pitch his way out of Chicago." For a minute let's put these two things aside: I hate the Brewers, and I believe pitchers will wish they were pitching in the Chicago Cubs lineup in the very near future. Instead, let's focus on the facts.

Last night, Matt Garza took the ball for the Milwaukee Brewers with a chance to get his team back into the top of the division. The Cubs, yes the very team Garza suggested Samardzija should abandon, had knocked the Brewers out of first place the night before; however, Garza sees himself as an ace and was set to face a 2014 Cubs lineup without Anthony Rizzo or Starlin Castro. This should've been an easy win over a team Garza openly disrespected despite being treated like nothing less than a star pitcher during his time there.

Of course, the Cubs prevailed and did so easily. Garza was severely outpitched by rookie Kyle Hendricks, the NL's Rookie of the Month in August. The victory completed a sweep for the Cubs, who are looking more and more like the team fans have been waiting to see, even with their two current best players out with injury. While Garza fell to 7-8 in another injury-plagued season, Hendricks moved to 6-1 and now owns an ERA (2.02) that is about half of Garza's (3.87).

Hendricks is just one of a few options the Cubs seem to have ready to replace recent higher priced pitchers like Garza, Samardzija, and others. Perhaps most importantly, he's healthy, something Garza could rarely claim during his Chicago stint.

The point here is that I believe the change is finally in sight. For now, it's fun enough to watch my Cubs sweep the Brewers right out of a September division lead. But starting in 2015, players like Garza should finally be trying to pitch their way IN to Chicago. Milwaukee can keep Garza. I'll take the kids who beat him.

Is Jeff Samardzija pitching his way out of Chicago?

Earlier this season, Milwaukee Brewers pitcher Matt Garza told Chicago Cubs ace Jeff Samardzija to pitch his way out of Chicago. Garza, who played for the Cubs the last three seasons, has also trashed the organization in a few different interviews. As a Cubs fan, I do believe Garza has a point. Looking back, I certainly wish that we had used Edwin Jackson's money to sign Garza instead (assuming that money was going to be spent, as opposed to saving it or investing further in development). His Brewers are in first place, 11.5 games ahead of the Cubs. And, yes, I also love watching Samardzija pitch and all that he brings to the team.

That being said, I would still like to see Samardzija "pitch his way out" of Chicago at some point over the next five or six weeks, because it will undoubtedly mean another great return for Theo Epstein, Jed Hoyer, and the Cubs organization.

The haul that the Cubs got in return for trading Garza last season is rapidly making the deal work out in Chicago's favor, even with C.J. Edwards, potentially the trade's best player, sitting on the injured list for AA Tennessee. Consider the following:

• Third baseman Mike Olt is struggling to keep his average above .150, but he does continue to lead all National League rookies in home runs and RBI, showing the potential to be a middle-of-the-order contributor. (He could be used to bolster another trade this year or in the offseason, as the Cubs have Kris Bryant completely dominating AA and seemingly nowhere to send him without hindering Christian Villanueva's progress at AAA Iowa. Having "too many third basemen" could be a great "problem" and may leave Olt as the odd man out while further adding to the return for Garza.)
  
• Reliever Justin Grimm has posted a 2.77 ERA in 42 appearances for the Cubs, helping to make the club's bullpen a strength this year.
  
• Neil Ramirez looks even better as he has managed to temporarily slide into the closer's role with a 1.06 ERA in 19 outings. Also, the team could decide to insert Ramirez into the rotation after dealing Jason Hammel and possibly Samardzija. (Of course, Ramirez's immediate fate may be directly tied to Hector Rondon's current injury/soreness.)
  
• Finally, Edwards is likely at least a year away from reaching Chicago, but he has star potential. His minor league stats (1.81 ERA, .737 winning percentage, and 260 Ks with only 74 walks in 204 innings) are certainly impressive. He should return from injury soon and can hopefully progress to Iowa later this summer.

Seriously. This is what the Cubs managed to get for giving up two months of Matt Garza, who made just 60 starts during his time in Chicago, compared to 94 in the previous three seasons for Tampa Bay. (Adding the 13 starts with Texas at the end of last season still puts him more than 20 below what he was able to do with the Rays over the same amount of time.) Yes, when Garza was healthy enough to pitch for the Cubs, he was pretty good. But we fans do not miss his horrid fielding abilities, his terrible attitude, or his trips to the DL. (As for being just generally weird, I was totally OK with that. I liked Garza a lot when he was healthy and keeping his mouth closed.)

Honestly, right now Samardzija is better than Garza. And with an extra year of team control on his contract, Cubs fans remember the Garza deal and are hoping for a similar (if not better) return when Samardzija is traded.

Samardzija is not interested in any kind of extension, and he really wants to hit the free agent market. So why waste a great trade chip on this Cubs roster? And even if he would consider an extension right now to avoid a trade, think about the money it would take. At least, what, $18-20 million per season? So with a four- or five-year extension, how many seasons will be wasted waiting for the prospects to reach the majors and help the team compete? Even if the answer is only two (which I doubt), that's $40 million that could be saved and spent later on top talent anyway. If the team is ready to compete in 2016, spend the money then.

The current front office has been solid in almost all of its moves. The Edwin Jackson contract kills me, but that's really the only thing I can question. No one could've predicted the Kyuji Fujikawa injury, while many other free agent deals have worked out tremendously. Paul Maholm brought back prospect Arodys Vizcaino, who is now healthy and rising through the minors. Scott Feldman was flipped for Jake Arrieta and Pedro Strop. And now Hammel is sure to demand at least a prospect or two.

Still, a Samardzija deal could be the biggest one yet. And since this team is not ready to compete yet, as a Cubs fan, I'm hoping he does "pitch his way out."

Beers and Baseball Cards

Both were available at today's Porter Flea in Nashville. The card was courtesy of Mitchell Bat Company. The beer is from our local Jackalope Brewery. Both are awesome.

Beers and Baseball Cards 03

Mike and Brett play a game of baseball card battle with a couple of packs of 1991 Score. It was a close game, decided on the last battle. Highlights include top prospect Tom Nevers and his tiny bat in addition to a heated standoff between John Olerud and Rondell White. You'll also get a math lesson as we calculate the WHIP of two pitchers to decide on a winner.

Why the New Orleans Grand Prix is a great idea

A lot of people are questioning this decision by IndyCar thinking maybe N.O. isn't ready for this, the infrastructure
isn't there, or parking is missing etc. But this is THE one place that Mike and I can serve as experts as we are both from New Orleans and visit often, we're experts here.

So what can we tell you?

- The track is literally next door to the TPC of N.O. golf course that holds a PGA event every year; If needed I could see them sharing parking with shuttles to transport people back and forth if needed (likely won't be needed, but its an easy plan b).

- The track is also 100% flat, as is all of N.O. but it is a very nice track, all it needs is grandstands... the flatness however may actually be the reason they are asking for June. March tendas to be quite rainy/cold (don't think temperature, think 40mph winds) but if they got a week of rain the track could get completely flooded.

That being said I wish they'd get March/April race and just try that date out, I don't think conflicting with Mardi Gras seaosn is really an issue so long as they stay off the big weekend preceeding Mardi Gras.

- They definitely don't want to do anything July-October, #1 July-Aug insane heat, Aug-October is tempting the hurricane gods.

- For folks not from N.O. the city is a half century long veteran of temporary grandstands, concession stands and porta potties for Mardi Gras, thats no issue

many think Mardi Gras = Bourbon street, but actually parades take place over the course of a month almost every night in about 20 different parts of the metro area.


- The Kart track next to North course is awesome; imagine what they could do for kids using that during race weekend, its what many tarcks are missing, let the kids try their hands at racing and get them hooke

- Honestly more than anything, the #1 reason you'll want to go to this race is for the tailgating; I trust in Louisianaians to show off why they are easily the best in the world at this

- As far as people saying there's no market/they can't support it... between N.O. and Baton Rouge there are multiple drag strips that hold regular events, 2 club race tracks (plenty race culture), one of the biggest car shows in the country held at SuperDome, multiple kart tracks: the city supports many large events (Mardi Gras, month long party with 50+ parades/bals), NFL team, NBA team, Triple A baseball team, power boat racing, PGA tour event, Final Fours, Super Bowls, sugar Bowl, the city is essentially built to hold annual big events.

- Speaking to that point again, N.O. is a lot like Baltimore/Barber in terms of how this race will be received. N.O. has a "we want nice things" attitude; they will embrace the event because they want to be seen on TV, they want to be a destination, the city is known for thowing big events, some of the biggest conferences ever, there won't be issues getting it embraced as an event. Especially one they can tailgate at.

Beers and Baseball Cards 02

Mike and Brett sort through packs of 1990 Upper Deck Collector's Choice and 1992 Fleer. Bonus packs include Desert Storm and Sports Stackers. Thanks for listening!




Accompanying visuals:

Why I Am OK With Darren Sproles Leaving the New Orleans Saints

I was recently accused of "hating" Darren Sproles in the aftermath of the news that he would be released by the New Orleans Saints. Because I, a Saints fan, defended the move on social media, it somehow was translated into a situation where I did not like Sproles and did not appreciate his contributions.

Now, before I explain myself, I think it's important to note that none of this has anything to do with whether or not I "like" Sproles. In fact, I like him a lot! Am I going to miss him? Of course. Do I wish salaries were not a concern and that he could stay with the Saints in some capacity? Absolutely. Look, Sproles is a great player and he will contribute to the next team that is fortunate to have him, which I am hoping is far, far away in the AFC. (Denver Broncos… give this man a call!) So, guys, I love Darren Sproles, and I would marry him if I could. OK?

So why am I fine with his departure? Well, there are few reasons.

1. Trust

I trust this front office and all they have done. It's a hard thing to earn, but they've done it. Even in the rare 7-9 or 8-8 seasons (which are still light years better than the 3-13 teams I grew up suffering through), we can see a clear focus on the immediate future and a plan to stockpile affordable weapons around Drew Brees.

Reggie Bush was a great player. I've posted on this site in the past about how ridiculous it is to call him a "draft bust" when he contributed to a Super Bowl victory for our city. I wasn't thrilled to see him leave, but his immediate replacement, Sproles, was a great move by the execs.

Sproles replaced Bush, and someone else will replace Sproles. Maybe it's Khiry Robinson, a rookie (drafted or undrafted), or a free agent. Anything is possible, and you can't really doubt a front office that has hit home runs over and over again.

There are salary implications here, and that's what this really comes down to. No one is saying that Sproles is terrible and he needs to go. That's absurd. But with millions of dollars committed to him, we need to decide if there is a wiser way to spend.

2. Production

Now this is where I have my critics. "Sproles is amazing!" "Sproles turns one-yard catches into long touchdowns!" "Sproles is the best pass-catching running back in the league!" This is all true to some extent and at certain times, I agree.

But now, try to forget all the highlights you've seen. Those memories we have of Sproles are outstanding, obviously. We've all seen it. And you haven't seen Sproles do something in a Saints uniform that I haven't seen.

But look at last year. First of all, his rushing and receiving numbers were all down. After scoring 17 offensive touchdowns in his first two seasons (nine in 2011 and eight in 2012), he managed just four scores last season. As a running back who turned 30 years old in 2013, that isn't very surprising.

Furthermore, Sproles had been a key factor on our special teams during his first two seasons, but he struggled there as well in 2013. His 21.3 yards per kick return was the lowest of his career, and more than five yards lower than his previous average in New Orleans. Similarly, his punt return average of 6.7 yards was the lowest since his rookie season. Not helping matters is the fact that he became the fair catch master at some point along the way.

So maybe season totals don't tell the whole story. But individual games surely do, and Sproles didn't have many impressive performances last year. Playing on a playoff team that won 10 games, I count three times that Sproles matched his expectations. In game one he totaled 110 yards to help the Saints get a big win over Atlanta. His best game of the year came in game four against the Miami Dolphins, when he had 114 receiving yards and two touchdowns and the team moved to 4-0. Five games later he scored twice again on seven catches for 76 yards, this time against the Dallas Cowboys. All four touchdowns came in two games, and did not score again after November 10th, including the postseason.

And how about the postseason? Sproles totaled 60 yards in a win over Philadelphia and gained only 34 in a loss against Seattle. He ended the season failing to reach 70 total yards in eight consecutive games.

3. Replacement Possibilities

As production declined for Darren Sproles, the team started to utilize other players. Defenses began to key on tight end Jimmy Graham and also managed to mostly take away the short passing game. Consequently, running backs Mark Ingram and Khiry Robinson stepped up to produce.

Robinson gained 152 yards on 33 carries in the last three games. Ingram was even more impressive, rushing for 146 yards in the two playoff games alone. The Saints were a different team down the stretch, playing Seattle much better than when Sproles caught seven passes in a 34-7 blowout a month earlier. Outlet passes to a running back obviously were not the answer to winning the NFC.

So running back production could be replaced by players currently on the roster, only running the ball instead of using screen passes. Add in a (hopefully healthy) Pierre Thomas who pulled in 77 receptions last year, and the team will still have the option to throw to a back when needed. Meanwhile, Travaris Cadet, who had only one fewer receiving score than Sproles last year, could be a huge surprise in 2014.

Those are four names currently on the roster and do not even take into account the draft, free agency, or trades.

As for his return production, I assume the team will look for a receiver to step in and fill that void, ideally replacing Lance Moore at receiver and Sproles on special teams. Again, this could come in the draft, free agency, or elsewhere.

Darren Sproles is a great player, and he will be missed. It has nothing to do with how much he will produce next year. But in the end, I am OK with this move, and I trust that the front office will replace him adequately and have this team ready to compete again.

Beers and Baseball Cards 01

In our debut episode of Beers and Baseball Cards, Mike and Brett open packs of 1988 Fleer and 1991 Score, discovering Hall of Famers and controversial home run hitters. Also discussed: error cards and Baseball's Greatest Grossouts. Feedback and suggestions are always welcome. Thanks for listening!




Some visuals to accompany this episode:


Ray Searage... OR... Ron Swanson??

Why is he holding a surfboard??

2014 Sochi Winter Olympics: Recap Podcast

Three episodes in one year! Like a real podcast! It's February Madness, guys...

Share it and hit up Wedge on Twitter @AllenWedge.

Americans love the Olympic medal counts

So things got busy for me over the last week of the Olympics, and even though I watched many hours of coverage, I still was pretty lost. But that's not surprising. It's a lot to keep up with. Tonight we are recording a podcast episode to discuss some of our thoughts, and we'll have that posted ASAP.

But one thing I thought was funny was the constant medal count. I know this is nothing new, for Americans to keep a running tally of the medals our athletes have won and to compare ourselves to the other countries. Of course we want to "win" the medal count and the mythological Olympic title that comes with it.

But do you think other countries do this? Like, do you think the media in Kazakhstan or Croatia were constantly reminding citizens of their medal totals compared to USA and Russia? (Each of those countries won one medal, by the way.) I seriously doubt it! That has to be an American thing. It's not enough for us to win a bunch of medals. We want to win the MOST medals! If we had our way, we'd actually like to win ALL of the medals, I suppose.

I was talking to a friend last week, and she is from Poland. I was joking around and trying to talk a little trash about the Olympics, honestly not knowing how many medals Poland had claimed. Well, she immediately started telling me about a couple of golds they had won already and was very proud to be discussing it. It wasn't about the total (I think it was two or three at the time, and Poland ended with six). But she was very happy that some of her country's athletes performed well enough to medal in the games, and she was ready to discuss each individual performance.

The idea of winning the medal count is clearly a matter of cultural perspective, much like the Dutch speedskating coach who called Americans "foolish" for playing football, a subject we'll definitely be discussing in tonight's podcast. But I feel like, if we're going to make up some contest, we should at least do it correctly. Shouldn't we be rewarding gold medals over silvers and bronzes?

The final total kind of came down to the wire, with Russia eventually edging us out at 33-28 in total medals. But what if we used a point system, where golds got three points, silvers got two, and bronzes only one? Using that system, which seems like a more accurate scoring method to me, Russia would've blown us away with a score of 70-53. Furthermore, Canada would've outscored us with 55 points, while Norway would've matched our 53. It's hard for us to accept, I know, but I think if I were really trying to win a medal total, I'd be happier with the double-digit golds captured by Canada and Norway.

Either way, it was definitely a fun two weeks, and we have a lot to discuss tonight. But I'd love to see more Americans get to a point where they can just appreciate all of the athletes and focus on the individual medal winners instead of the total medals won by each country.

Nashville's Adventure Science Center: Science of the Winter Olympic Games

Nashville's Adventure Science Center is a great place for kids to learn about the science behind every day activities. My kids love this place, and our family membership allows us to stop in and check out all of the special programs they host. Every month or so, there is something new. In October, for example, they sometimes showcase the science of Halloween, where you can hold creepy insects or attend a special effects workshop. The recent Maker Fair was fun as well, with all kinds of makers and builders displaying their inventions and products.

Well, yesterday's event focused on the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. This time the Science Center simply set up various stations, allowing the kids to play and experience fun versions of Olympic sports. There was also a celebration of Russia itself, with local native Russians teaching us about their culture. It was a great experience, with some of the highlights illustrated below.

The temperature outside was in the low-20s and was perfect for curling! There was an actual curling stone to hold, and then blocks of ice to slide toward the targets. Unfortunately, we had left our coats in the car and didn't complete even the first end.

Inside, we were met by the sound of Russian music. Tables displayed information about Russia, with everything from children's toys and games to clothing and even Russian food.

 
The kids then tried some hockey and downhill skiing (in the form of a large, inflatable slide). Or maybe that was the luge?
 

But the highlight for my kids was the ski jumping. Here they were allowed to use the Science Center's new Tinker Garage, which is filled with a wide array of donated tools and supplies. They had to build a "skier" out of any parts and pieces they could find. There were balloons and sand available, as well as cutout ski figures to attach.

 

 

After a good 90 minutes of cutting, gluing, taping, filling, and measuring, the skiers were ready for their big jumps. The creations were dropped down a slope of approximately 20 feet, ultimately crashing to the floor (and often shattering to pieces). Thanks to the sand balloons, though, most landed on their skis.

 

Overall, it was a great day, and my kids had a lot of fun celebrating the Olympics outside of our house.

Quick Olympic Thoughts

As we wrap up the first week, here are a few things I've noticed.

1. Bob Costas is rapidly fading from medal contention and, at this rate, may not even finish in the Top Three at his position.

2. The Gold Zone option on the NBC Olympics site is great. However, sometimes when they switch sports, they say, "Riveting stuff..." If that stuff was so riveting, then why are we switching to something else?

3. Who knew there was so much drama in women's skeleton?! I don't know if they know this or not, but essentially you lie on your stomach and hope you win. To paraphrase Seinfeld, you could probably win a medal against your will in this sport.

Another week to go! Our post-Olympic podcast will truly be riveting stuff.

Maybe curling just isn't for us?

Every morning I wake up to watch curling. Or, I should say… Every morning I wake up to watch Team USA lose a curling match! It's getting old quickly. These games come on pretty early, and by the time I take a shower and start getting ready for work, the game is half way over and Team USA is trying to find some way to keep the opponent from stretching an established lead. Watching curling when one team is simply attempting to limit the other side to a lesser victory is not very exciting!

The men seem to be 1-3 with a handful of matches remaining. The women, who dropped their first four, just pulled out a victory in a match that I somehow got to watch at a more reasonable hour of, like, noon. But it looks like they'd need to win their final four to have a chance of advancing.

Curling looks fun, with all the sliding and the yelling and the shaking hands. Like a game that would be played in a bar. But more polite. So like a game you'd play at church. If the church were frozen.

Either way, I'm starting to think Team USA just might not be cut out for this sport. I'm hoping somewhere there are small American children who are living, eating, and breathing curling right now. Then maybe in 2026, when the GBS writers' kids are blogging about sports and covering the Winter Games, they will not have to suffer through all of these terrible defeats that are basically decided by the fifth end.

An Olympic medal decided by something called a 'YOLO Flip'?

I'm sure the Ancient Greeks would be so proud to learn that the "YOLO Flip" helped Iouri Podladtchikov win a gold medal in snowboarding yesterday. It's like that old story about Hercules doing the YOLO Flip, a feat that will be forever portrayed by the famous "Hercules Says YOLO!" constellation.

But just like the headline of this article/video suggests (in addition to links from Yahoo and other places), many are failing to recognize the fact that Shaun White was not defeated by this one trick. I know it sounds cooler to say this one move did him in, but you don't fail to medal because one guy did one flip.

Believe it or not, there were also silver and bronze medals awarded in this sport! Fifteen-year-old Ayumu Hirano (Japan) took second, while Taku Hiraoka (also from Japan) finished third. Unfortunately, you'd never know it based on many of the reports coming out of Sochi yesterday.

Olympic Anagrams!

Looking for a quick way to kill time between Olympic events? Here are a few anagrams based on the names of some Team USA athletes. The first one to tweet @AllenWedge with the answers (or about how stupid this is) will get a shout out on the next podcast!

1. Red Cola Gig

2. Seen In Major Ad

3. Devils Army

4. Dumpy Ray

5. Gun Gear Baskets

6. Elm Hair Inn

7. Chili Weather

8. He Saw I Hunt

9. Sea Hen Tank

10. Ransacked His Horn

11. We Lay Hangers

12. Usual Jam Icon

Olympic Dinner Part Two

Baked sole with a radish salad. While the sour cream sauce doesn't look perfect, it tasted great!

Top New Orleans NBA All-Stars Through History: Pelicans, Hornets, Jazz

With Anthony Davis receiving his first NBA All-Star bid, it'll feel great to have a New Orleans player back at the game in 2014. New Orleans NBA teams have not really offered tons of All-Stars in the past, but perhaps Davis can change this trend and get the Pelicans back on the right track. Davis, who is averaging around 20 points and 10 rebounds per game, becomes the 8th All-Star to represent a New Orleans team.

Below are the past New Orleans All-Stars, ranked by their performances in the big games.

7. Baron Davis

Davis's one All-Star appearance in a New Orleans Hornets uniform was fairly representative of the overall disappointment of his New Orleans tenure. In the 2004 game, he came off of the bench to score seven points, making only one of his six three-point attempts.

6. Truck Robinson

Robinson represented the New Orleans Jazz in the 1978 game, coming off of the bench to help the East win by scoring seven points and adding six rebounds.

5. Jamal Mashburn

Unfortunately, Mashburn was never fully healthy when playing for New Orleans. But he was a great player and scored 10 points in the 2003 All-Star game, marking the first player to represent the city in the game since 1979.

4. Jamaal Migloire

Migloire did not start the 2004 All-Star game, but he led the East in scoring with 19 points and added eight rebounds.

3. David West

West was a fan favorite in New Orleans and represented the team twice in All-Star competition. In back-to-back years (2008-09), West totaled 12 points and seven rebounds as his West squad split the decisions.

2. Pete Maravich

My favorite basketball player of all time hobbled up and down the court in a New Orleans Jazz uniform for six seasons. During this time, he was named an All-Star three times, although he missed the 1978 game with an injury. He became the first New Orleans All-Star when he started the 1977 contest, scoring 10 points and adding four assists and four steals. Two years later he scored 10 points as an East starter again.

1. Chris Paul

Paul was a great player to have around during the city's rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina. In 2008, during his first All-Star appearance, he came off of the bench to lead all players with 14 assists. He also had 16 points, four steals, and three rebounds in his All-Star debut. In 2009 he was named a starter, the first for New Orleans in 30 years; amazingly, he repeated his 14 assists and contributed 14 points, seven rebounds, and three steals in the West's win. After sitting out the 2010 game with an injury, he made one last All-Star start in a Hornets uniform, grabbing 10 points, seven assists, and five steals in a 2011 West victory.

Five Olympic Sports That Could Move From Summer to Winter

So apparently the IOC believes that the Winter Olympics should only include sports that involve ice or snow. Consequently, we end up with approximately three times as many sports during the summer games. While I have more than enough contests to entertain me over the next two weeks, I was a bit overwhelmed during the London games, and I would like to see a little more balance between the two.

So which sports could be moved from the summer to the winter? Below are my top five summer options that I think could make the switch.

5. Gymnastics

Although I think it could easily move to the winter, I realize gymnastics would be too much of a direct competitor to figure skating for primetime broadcasts.

4. Swimming

Sure, we all associate swimming with the summer season, but it's an indoor sport and could easily switch. Of course, again, it's become a huge primetime draw and is therefore too "big" of a sport to be any higher on my list.

3. Fencing

Does it really matter if there is snow on the ground outside while guys are fighting with swords inside?

2. Table Tennis

This makes sense, as we could watch the real tennis outdoors in the summer, and then we'd have the table tennis inside during the winter.

1. Cycling Track

Maybe it's just that this has become one of my favorite sports and that I'd love to see it at both Olympics, but it's another indoor contest that could also easily be moved. For now I'll just have to settle for the speed skating in the winter.

"Dude, let's boycott the Olympics!"

I keep hearing this. From people on my Facebook feed, various blogs and sites, and random people in public. They want to boycott! They want to tell our athletes who have worked each day for four years that they cannot go compete in the Sochi Winter Olympics.

I think if you're one of the people saying this, you were probably also the kid organizing the petition to get the teacher fired, right? You know. The teacher gave a test, everyone failed, and someone's approaching the principal's office with 17 signatures on a sheet of looseleaf. But that's what kids do. Instead of talking about issues, working out problems, and reaching some form of appropriate compromise, they resort to immature plans like this.

Also similar is the teenager quitting his job. Your boss at McDonald's wouldn't give you a cigarette break, so you threw your apron on the counter and "walked out." Of course, McDonald's didn't close because you quit, not even for five minutes. The company didn't lose one penny and, in fact, saved the $27 they would've paid you for the rest of your shift. And the dudes you joked around with at work every night? They couldn't even remember your name within 48 hours.

Neither of these scenarios ever accomplished anything, but we all knew kids who did them consistently. So let me ask you: What did the 1980 boycott accomplish? Aren't we back in Russia 34 years later, awkwardly threatening (if these critics had their say) to do the same thing? Are we still talking about how much we let our athletes down that year? (Hint: The answer is yes.)

I hate arguing politics, and I don't want to be preachy, but surely most people have to buy into the idea of reflecting on history and learning from past successes and failures. Right? Then why am I still seeing blogs like this one saying things like this:

"Besides the alarming problems on the women's downhill skiing and men's slopestyle snowboarding courses, threats of avalanches and potential terrorism and widespread complaints from journalists about dubious plumbing, the political and moral underpinnings of the games are falling apart."

When I read and hear you post and say things like that, I have no choice but to believe one of the following is true:

1. You are truly sincere in your efforts and are just misguided.

Maybe you really believe you will make a difference. I don't know, but I'm willing to give some of you the benefit of the doubt. Just do yourself a favor and research past boycotts. I think you'll find that continued dialogue and respectful compromise can usually be just as effective. Also, realize that "sticking to your guns" means that hundreds of athletes do not get a chance to compete at the Olympic level, something many of these Americans have dreamed of accomplishing for years.

2. You are selfish.

Similar to number one, except here your efforts aren't sincere at all. You just want what you want, and you don't care who else is affected. Maybe you have a gay friend, so you're going to show everyone just how much you believe in gay rights. Maybe you hate Obama and just want to criticize anything and everything that takes place during his terms. I don't know. But some of you sound like you only have your own interests in mind when you say these things. Just imagine that some day, your son or daughter may be on his or her way to the Olympics, and there will be a group of people attempting to minimize this achievement due to some political agenda.

3. You are crazy.

Maybe you really think you can fix everything. But here's the thing: You can't fix everything!

See, I believe that we should mainly focus on getting things correct here in America before we go fixing everyone else. You know, America. Where we live. Where it may soon be legal to buy marijuana in more states than it is to have a gay marriage. Our country isn't even on the same page, yet you want to "fix" other countries.

Did you see your Facebook feed during the Super Bowl Coca Cola commercial? "A gay couple!" "Those people are singing OUR song!" Yeah, we really need to focus on Russia right now.

What about all of the racism that still exists? What the homeless people sleeping on the streets this winter? Healthcare? Education?

In the end, we're talking about people competing in sports. There are much larger issues to address here at home before I'm ever going to worry about correcting another nation's problems in relation to the Olympics.

Did you watch the interview Bob Costas did with the President last night? There's a working relationship between the two leaders. I think that's actually pretty positive. It isn't really our job to correct everything.

And finally, I'm so sick of all the Americans talking about the awful hotel situation. If you aren't in Russia this week, I don't want to hear you comment on the plumbing in Sochi! Just shut up about it already.

4. You are lazy.

Look, I get it. Doing the Olympics is hard! Like many people, I'm just your average baseball- and football-loving American. I might be able to name 15 Sochi athletes total as we just get going here. And there is just so much other stuff going on, right?

As a kid in 1984, I had an Olympics board game. I watched on TV, I read about it in the newspaper. It was sort of hard to avoid, I guess. We talked about it in school, and I talked about it with my family.

In 1992, I remember the Red, White, and Blue pay-per-view channels. We didn't pay for it, but I listened to the Dream Team's games on these channels, trying to figure out which of the scrambled video images were Michael Jordan.

Now we have it all at our fingertips. Television coverage of some kind will be available at almost every hour, day or night. Live streams of most sports can be found on our computers, phones, and other devices. (I'm watching live speed skating right now as I type at 7:00 a.m.) And yet many of us will not watch one second of this year's games.

There is so much to do, so much to watch. We have American Idol, and CSI, and whatever else people watch. We have hundreds of channels and dozens of devices streaming Netflix and other services.

Where do we start? Who are the big names? Which are the best sports? It's a lot to dive into. But it's really fun.

Just this week, I learned so much. On Tuesday, I did a couple of hours of research and setup the Live NBC Sports app on my phone before recording our preview podcast with Wedge that night. I don't really know much, but the podcast gave me a chance to at least discuss some things with Allen and to learn a bunch as we talked.

On Wednesday I spent 45 minutes making a TV schedule for myself, using the Central time zone, and noting all Olympic programming on the five channels offering coverage (NBC, NBC Sports, MSNBC, USA, CNBC). My kids have already gone through it and marked some things they would like to watch, and they have the exact time and channel listed for them right there by the TV.

We watched as much of the NBC coverage as we could this week, we read a little bit about Russia, and my wife planned a few "Russian" meals to cook during the Olympics. My kids are learning a little bit and are having some fun.


To me, the most telling sign of freedom is that we can allow our athletes to make their own decisions. Even if we disagree with the way things are in other countries, our athletes are ultimately free, and we aren't going to stop them from following their dreams. They've trained for years and have decided to compete in these games. For two weeks we can watch, we can support them, and we can have fun along the way.

(Check out this post from the Tipsy Geekette blog for more sane reasoning.)