The Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University college football program has released starting quarterback Marcus Vick after his actions during the Gator Bowl. Vick, a redshirt junior from Newport News, stomped on a prone Louisville DE, Elvis Dumervil during the Gator Bowl's second quarter.

It's about bloody time someone put their foot down (no pun intended) on the misdeeds of Vick the Younger. Marcus Vick has been a blot on the team's reputation since his first days in Blacksburg. A press conference by school officials has been called for this coming Saturday. I will, sooner or later, provide commentary.

Good riddance.

For further information, see:
CNN/SI
The Richmond Times-Dispatch
Hokiesports.com

Posted by: Country Pundit at 06:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

It appears that the University of Southern California has lost the national championship of college football to the University of Texas. I note without sorrow the defeat of the USC Trojans.

I would of course have preferred that a team from the ACC or the SEC be the national champion, but that will come perhaps next year. (Y'hear me, Spurrier? The future is now, as they say on Imus in the Morning, with original credit to Washington Redskins coach George F. Allen, Senior.)

Congratulations to the Longhorns, and take that, Matt Leinart & Reggie Bush. TexasBestGrok is my choice for associated coverage.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

This week's winners and commentary, brought to you in part by Powdermilk Biscuits. Heavens, they're tasty!

---

Georgia Tech defeats Miami: Good. As stated before, Miami exists to do one thing, and that is to sledgehammer Virginia Tech. Having done that, I don't care what else happens to them. The Georgia Tech defense did rather well tonight, and my (Red Sox) hat is off to them.

Virginia Tech defeats the University of Virginia: Who Cares. The outcome of this game was foreordained quite a while back. I listened to maybe forty-five seconds of it on the radio while driving around.

Clemson defeats South Carolina: Bad. I know that I called the Gamecocks to win this one in a previous post, but I started getting very uncomfortable once I saw such a low score. Your prognosticator had an unwelcome suspicion that Clemson would win a close game. Rats.

Boston College defeats Maryland: Good. Although I have nothing against the Terrapins, BC might do more with that win than Maryland.

North Carolina defeats Duke: Who Cares. In a couple of months, this is an important matchup. When in November and where there is no Coach K, this game isn't worth turning to, save for alumni.

North Carolina State defeats Middle Tennessee: Who Cares. I should hope that the Wolfpack could pull that off.

---

Louisiana State defeats Mississippi: Who Cares. Another predestined victory.

Auburn defeats Alabama: No Call. This appears to have been a good game---I didn't get to see any of it---and I'm glad to see the Tide having a good year. I'm certain that Auburn will continue to be a good program, and I wish the Tide the best in the near future.

Georgia defeats Kentucky: Who Cares. The surprise is that Kentucky scored.

Arkansas defeats Mississippi State: Ouch. The battle of the back markers is decisively concluded by the Razorbacks.

Vanderbilt defeats Tennessee: Fantastic It is a glorious---but highly strange---day in the SEC when Vanderbilt finishes better than Tennessee. Rocky Flop, baby! Between this and the Georgia Tech win, I have had two good games today.

---

Enh, not much else went on. I really need to get some sort of comprehensive system to watch more of these games. Curses and so forth for Herbstreit & Corso picking Clemson.

UPDATE: There is, after all, a reason why I'm not employed by ESPN or some other sports broadcast outlet for football coverage. That reason is that I'm not very good at it.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Yeeeeeeeeeeee haw.

The Vanderbilt Commodores defeat the Tennessee Volunteers 28-24 in Knoxville! Take that, Big Orange! Joyful joyful, we adore thee, dude who picked off Clauuuusen..."

Perhaps, in the spirit of Spurrier, you can't spell "OUT OF BOWL CONTENTION" without the letters "UT". Heh heh heh. We shall see.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 04:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy of Laurin Manning, we have a report announcing the cable broadcast of the South Carolina-Clemson game. A quick peek over at the South Carolina athletics site confirms this, with further detail coming from the Greenville News.

The game will be broadcast from 1900 hours on 19 November 2005 on ESPN2. For those of us not in the Palmetto State, coverage will switch to LSU-Mississippi after 1945 hours. Yahoo! will have an audio broadcast of the game here, with pre-game starting at 1730 hours.

I am of course for the ol' ball coach, and my amateur prognostications suggest that the Gamecocks might pull this one off. Analysis below the fold: more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

As far as I am concerned, there are two conferences in this country for NCAA Division I college football, namely the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Southeastern Conference. Thus, a brief recap of scores and a little worthless commentary.

---

Clemson beats the Florida State University: Good. I hate FSU.

Virginia beats Georgia Tech: Good. I've got nothing against the Ramblin' Wreck, but I'm from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and loyalty to Virginia demands a cheer.

Miami beats Wake Forest: Bad. I've loathed Miami for years and I thought about going to Wake Forest once. Miami serves to sledgehammer Virginia Tech, and that's a good thing. Other than that, I've got no use for the Hurricanes.

Maryland defeats North Carolina: Good. I've got zero ties to Maryland, but it's the ancestral home of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and the Western Maryland Railway, so we like them.

The North Carolina State University leading Boston College: Bad. For some reason, I have a soft spot in my heart for BC. It might be because Clancy's Jack Ryan got his degree there.

UPDATE: Boston College defeats NCSU: Good.

---

South Carolina beats Florida: Good. I used to like Florida but Spurrier was the reason. Viva the ol' ball coach, and see here for the AP article on the game. I figure Laurin Manning will be happy.

Alabama loses to the Louisiana State University: Bad. I grew up learning to cheer for the Tide, since they used to dismantle Tennessee in the 1980s.

Arkansas defeats Mississippi: Who Cares. I don't have anything against Mississippi, but this appears to have been a battle of two back marker teams.

Kentucky beats Vanderbilt: Bad. I like Kentucky at some level---hey, I'm a sucker for Ashley Judd in a Kentucky hockey jersey---but I have to cheer for Vanderbilt. Why's that? They're usually an SEC doormat, and I like to see the doormats come forward.

Tennessee beats Memphis: Bad. I hate Tennessee, and laugh at their athletic misfortune. Congratulations, you guys beat an unranked lesser school by a grand total of four points.

Georgia leading Auburn: Bad. I have no particular love for either team, but the best picture for South Carolina involves a Georgia loss. Waaaar eagle(s), in that case.

UPDATE: Auburn defeats Georgia: Good, for the foregoing reasons.

MODERN EDIT: A lot of traffic comes my way looking for Ashley Judd in a Kentucky hockey jersey. We shall chum the Google waters in search of hits!

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:43 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

Therefore, I am pleased to note that Steve Spurrier's South Carolina Gamecocks triumphed in Knoxville last night, defeating Phillip Fulmer's Tennessee Volunteers by a score of 16-15. As the Ol' Ball Coach put it, "God is smiling on the Gamecocks".

That's a tame remark for a man who once cracked that, "You can't spell Citrus [Bowl] without 'U-T'" or who dubbed in-State rival Florida State University the "Free Shoes University", after FSU players were found to have accepted free shoes from some unauthorized party. Nevertheless, Spurrier's wise-acre remarks regarding opposing schools are either the stuff of celebration or the justification of blood oaths sworn at midnight. As for me, I'm always happy to hear him mock the other team, especially when it reduces dyed-in-the-wool alumni to vein-popping rage. (That being said, it can be a very lonely place in a sports bar near the Tennessee border when you're one of about three people cheering for Florida...)

Congratulations to the Gamecocks, a harsh 'ha ha' to the Volunteers, and three cheers for Stephen Orr Spurrier. I'm betting that Laurin Manning will be pleased.

---

Addendum: Too bad I live in Virginia and have no cognizable ties to the University of South Carolina, or I'd probably have a USC hat by now. That is, if they'd make one that said something other than what most of the ones I've seen do. Perhaps this one, even though it's not that generic white that I used to like.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 08:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

My remarks seem to have hit a nerve on the part of one of the named parties. Marc, of Full Throttle, stopped by and posted the following comment, reproduced in full:

I note you linked my site as uniformly negative (Full Throttle), I'll take slight issue with that.

Was I negative in how Gordon stated what he did? Yes, but not just because of this incident. He has a long history of making ill advised comments. So much so his sponsors have required contract language that protects them from Gordons occasional rantings.

I did generaly agree with the substance of what he said. I don't agree the advantage given is much to worry about. Example: You cite a fuel mileage advantage. Well where was it. Patrick ran low on fuel, turned down the boost and it cost her 2 positions in the final standings.

Advantage given by a 0.8 differential in qual speeds? That difference amounts to about 60 feet from the pole position and the outside of the fourth row, hardly significant.

And then there is this little shot given by you: "A lot of bloggers rallied to Ms. Patrick's defense, usually focusing upon ad hominem insults towards Mr. Gordon. Additionally, it seems that many posters and commenters display a considerable level of ignorance when it comes to motorsports"

Followed up by this: "The estimated number of turns involved in the Indianapolis 500 has been revised; the track is 2.5 miles long and the race is 500 miles; 200 laps are necessary. 200x4=800. I had previously estimated off the cuff that it was 500 laps in length, which would lead to the earlier 2,000. The error is regretted."

Regrettable? No it just shows how disengaged you are from Indy and the IRL in general.

That would be called pot-kettle-black.

And now, the response:

First off, I'd like to thank Marc for stopping by and commenting. Since I don't have any ad revenues, traffic and interaction is the payoff for this publication. Yee haw.

Secondly, I stand by my decision to count Marc's article as "negative". The clear text of the article is, to put it mildly, not complimentary of Mr. Gordon. A few choice selections:

-Because [Robby Gordon's] as dumb as a box of Vanilla Waffers!

-I guess it hasnÂ’t entered into this mental midgets mind that there is a minimum weight for Indy Cars. (The factual error regarding IRL weight policy was corrected and noted in a subsequent update.)

-But Gordon is still stuuuupid! (This was included in the update noting the real IRL weight policy.)

Somehow, I for whatever reason do not see Marc's 'general agreement' with what Mr. Gordon said. Perhaps it's buried somewhere in the box of vanilla wafers, like a Cracker Jack toy surprise.

As for Ms. Patrick's theoretical fuel economy advantage versus her actual performance (nearly running out of fuel, as things would have it) all I can say is that perhaps she didn't drive the thing intelligently. And yet she finished fourth. I would suggest that superior equipment and her unique competitive advantage would allow her a greater margin of error than would be available to the average driver, but that's a subject for the mathematicians, which I'm not.

With regards to the value of sixty feet, I suggest that Marc (and anyone else) ask Bobby Labonte if he'd like to have had an additional six feet at the 2005 Coca-Cola 600. You might not think that sixty feet matters in a race of several hundred miles, but it does: Sixty feet can be the difference between being unavoidably caught up in a wreck or slipping through unscathed. In motorsports, it's the little things that matter.

Marc also takes exception to my remarks regarding the ignorance of posters and commenters, noting with what I assume is glee the fact that I had made a mistake on the number of laps (and thus the number of turns) in the Indianapolis 500. My reply? "Come off it." In the flood of "Danica's hot; Robbie's fat!" posts and comments, I detected very few responses that addressed the substance of Mr. Gordon's remarks. It took considerable amounts of digging to find the Penske numbers quoted anywhere. I found, on the other hand, a lot of people throwing insults at Mr. Gordon.

I fail to see the equivalence between minor factual confusion and insults devoid of any grounding in motorsports. Asking "What does the '500' in 'Indianapolis 500' refer to, the number of miles it covers or the number of laps?" doesn't seem to be such a major problem, as opposed to people who line up to heap abuse on Robby Gordon, but would have a hard time distinguishing a Nextel Cup stock car from a Formula 1 machine. It's also worth noting that as far as factual (but corrected and openly admitted) errors go, Marc thought that fuel was counted in the IRL's weight calculation.

I don't consider his error to be significant either; it takes a certain level of knowledge of the sport to even get to the point where you worry about such errors. Furthermore, it's a good thing that he corrected the article, and openly said so, to boot. However, I think it worth noting by way of response to his criticism. I wonder if his error shows his 'disengagement' with Indianapolis and the Indy Racing League in general.

UPDATE: I found this post over at Catallarchy which goes in a slightly different direction, but make of it what you will. Thanks to the Cold Spring Shops for the pointer.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1010 words, total size 6 kb.

Kelley accuses Mr. Gordon of, among other things, being a "loser" and a wimp" because of his remarks. For what it's worth, I'll throw my two cents in on the subject.

I agree with Mr. Gordon's comments, and wholly disagree with Kelley's.

The issue is whether Mr. Gordon's position, that Ms. Patrick enjoys an unfair competitive advantage, is warranted.

The point of having a sanctioning body for a given motorsport is to ensure fair competition, where driver versus driver is the defining competition. The means to acheiving this end usually involve some sort of standardization of the other half of the racing component, the car. The International Race of Champions (popularly known as "IROC") is one example of this. Quoting from their website: Take 12 of the world's top drivers, from different types of racing, put them in identically prepared IROC race cars, give them a set of rules which virtually eliminates the variables usually associated with racing (no pit stops, no qualifying, no driver set-up of the cars, etc.) and wave a green flag at them.

In my opinion, the other end is represented by Formula 1, wherein the technological side is equal to, if not superior to, the driver's skills in importance.

I would suggest that most other asphalt-based motorsports are somewhere in between. This includes the Indy Racing League and NASCAR, two American-based series.

With those preliminaries aside, let us consider the question of whether Ms. Patrick enjoys an unfair competitive advantage. An unfair competitive advantage can be many things, from a fuel cell that holds more fuel than the sanctioning body allows, to a more powerful engine than allowed, or any other thing that goes outside the boundaries of that particular series' rules. I do not, however, suggest that strict adherence to the letter of the law is the sole standard; I would prefer that something above and beyond mere rote compliance be sought.

The general rule in motorsport is that a lighter car is usually preferable. A lighter car confers several advantages, some of which are detailed below:

1. Acceleration
2. Fuel economy
3. Braking
4. Handling

Any one of these four factors alone can be determinative of success in any given race; in essence, they are the heart of what a car builder strives for. Ms. Patrick enjoys advantages in each of these categories due to her relatively low (100 pounds) weight when compared to the weight of other IRL drivers. In detail:

Acceleration - Given roughly equivalent horsepower, gearing, driver reaction times and aerodynamics, a lighter car will always out-accelerate a heavier car. Acceleration is important throughout a race, for the following reasons. First, when a start occurs, the lighter car will be able to close in faster on the cars ahead of it, or more quickly open a gap between it and the cars behind. In a late-race restart, these sort of intervals can be crucial.

Secondly, the lighter car will respond better in turns. Normally, drivers brake to some degree when entering a turn, either through active braking or by simply backing off the throttle. The lighter car will be able to regain speed more quickly than a heavier car when coming out of a turn. Inasmuch as most races involve a number of turns (roughly 2,000 800 at the course hosting the Indianpolis 500), quicker acceleration out of the turns can be crucial.

Fuel Economy - Fuel economy is usually quantified as the amount of laps that a given car can go on its load of fuel. Here again, Ms. Patrick's weight is valuable to her. The IRL mandates that all cars must weight 1,525 pounds before driver and fuel are added. Given that cars probably have a fixed maximum amount of fuel, driver weight is the only remaining variable.

Once again, assume equivalent cars in terms of horsepower, gearing, driver reaction times, and aerodynamics. Also assume that the two cars are driven in the same manner. The lighter car will have better fuel economy than the heavier car, and will probably be able to complete more laps per fueling. To obtain the same speeds as the lighter car, the heavier car will need to be driven with a higher rate of fuel consumption, thus shortening the number of laps available to the latter car. Such an advantage, if used properly, can be devastating. Cars that run out of fuel generally do not win races.

Braking - The ability to brake is vital in any race that involves turning. A lighter car will have less inertia entering a turn, thus reducing the amount of braking force required to successfully negotiate a turn. This translates into less wear and tear on the brake system, along with other advantages. Ms. Patrick theoretically will require a shorter braking period and will be able to come off of that shorter braking period taking advantage of her superior acceleration as she exits the turn. Once again, this sort of circumstance can be of tremendous advantage to a driver, as the driver would be able to either gain ground on those ahead or open the gap between the following cars.

Handling - Altering a vector (i.e. changing direction) is an action which requires sufficient force to overcome inertia. The greater the inertia of a given object, the greater the force required to alter its vector. A given object's inertia is generally equivalent to its mass. As the Wikipedia puts it, "An object with small inertial mass changes its motion more readily, and an object with large inertial mass does so less readily."

Ms. Patrick's car, having less mass than those of her competitors, will change its motion/alter its vector more easily. Her steering burden, if you will, is less than that of her competitors over the course of the race.

For the foregoing reasons, I believe that Mr. Gordon's remarks are entirely justified and that Ms. Patrick possesses an unfair competitive advantage. A car driven by Ms. Patrick would perform better than the same car driven by someone else, due to Ms. Patrick's weight disparity.

Kelley also makes several assertions in her article that I consider either inaccurate or unwarranted.

-Comparison of the Indy Racing League to the circumstance of Annika Sorenstam is unwarranted. To properly establish a comparison between Sorenstam and Patrick, Ms. Sorenstam would somehow be able to hit the ball harder than say Vijay Singh, benefit from using a lighter ball, and perhaps have shorter distances of play. The advantage that Ms. Patrick may enjoy could be of that magnitude.

-Mr. Gordon did not participate in the 2005 Indianapolis 500 not because of Ms. Patrick, but because of pre-existing commitments to his NASCAR Nextel Cup team which was racing in Concord, North Carolina. Mr. Gordon has raced in both the Indianapolis 500 and the Coca-Cola 600 for the past four years, and was prevented from doing so this year only because of a change in the Indianapolis 500's starting time. The CNN/SI article is incomplete in this respect.

In summary, I believe that Mr. Gordon's opinion was warranted.

Yahoo! News has this article dealing with the issue. I would regard calculations coming from the Penske organization as highly reliable, due to their long-standing tradition of technical excellence in motorsports. Examining the starting grid, it appears that 0.8MPH is significant. A difference of 0.8MPH in qualifying speeds is the difference between starting from the pole and starting in eighth place. In motorsports, miniature advantages matter greatly.

If the IRL asked me, I would suggest that a rule change would be necessary. Weigh the car (1,525 pounds) with an equal load of fuel for every car and the individual driver in it. Measure that all-inclusive figure against a "Standard Car Weight", and either add or remove ballast as necessary to meet that figure.

However, it appears from the Yahoo! article that the IRL is not contemplating a rule change at this point in time.

UPDATE: As usual, I'm behind on the news cycle, but I don't care. A lot of bloggers rallied to Ms. Patrick's defense, usually focusing upon ad hominem insults towards Mr. Gordon. Additionally, it seems that many posters and commenters display a considerable level of ignorance when it comes to motorsports, but then that shouldn't be surprising. It is, after all, the blogosphere we're talking about. I'm pleasantly amused by the fact that the oh-so-intelligent blogosphere can't even spell Mr. Gordon's first name right.

I do, however, also note that a couple of people took the basic line that I did, pointing out that Mr. Gordon's position was pretty much defensible. They were of course shouted down, but that doesn't change the fact that I think they're right. I'd be interested in knowing the split in opinion between those who are veteran fans of the sport, and those whose knowledge of the sport began with a FHM pictorial for Danica Patrick. Put bluntly, would Ms. Patrick be so aggressively defended if she wasn't considered to be attractive?

I think not.

Anyways, here's some of the reaction, uniformly negative:
Backcountry Conservative
Outside the Beltway
Wizbang
Kevin Drum
Full Throttle
Doug Petch
The Q Speaks

Don Singleton

I'm still looking for actual posts that defend Mr. Gordon. Click here to see what Technorati has to say about it all.

UPDATE II: OK, I found something from The Unofficial Everybody's NASCAR Nextel Cup Blog. This fellow seems to have a solid handle on the situation. There might even be a case of some good old fashioned media bias or ulterior motives. Yee haw.

Also, this fellow has some mathematical figuring that supports my findings. So far as I know, it's the only mathematical work that anyone's done, other than "Robbie (sic) needs to lose weight!!!!!"

Here is another individual not buying into the hype regarding Ms. Patrick.

-The estimated number of turns involved in the Indianapolis 500 has been revised; the track is 2.5 miles long and the race is 500 miles; 200 laps are necessary. 200x4=800. I had previously estimated off the cuff that it was 500 laps in length, which would lead to the earlier 2,000. The error is regretted.

UPDATE III: It seems that even the National Review crowd is getting into this. Kathryn Jean Lopez weighs in, favorably quoting the following: This guy sounds right: "I thought race car drivers were real men, not whining children. So, this woman weighs less because she is a woman. The men are probably physically stronger because they are men. Should their steering be adjusted to make it harder for them to turn because they have this strength advantage over a woman driver because they are probably stronger than she is? "

Her correspondent is wrong. As I laid out earlier in the Handling section, Ms. Patrick's car would not require as much force to overcome its inertia. Any "strength gap" would probably be nullified. Oh, and by the way: IRL cars probably use power steering, to boot. The small size of the steering wheels and the small driver's cockpit doesn't leave a lot of room to work with in terms of steering motion.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1893 words, total size 13 kb.

There was no post about Robby Gordon at Bristol Motor Speedway for the Food City 500, because Robby didn't make the race. Thus, I was rather disappointed.

That was then, this is now. Today, Robby Gordon took the #7 car to a 43rd place in the starting grid at Martinsville. This race, the Advance Auto Parts 500, will be run this Sunday. I of course will be listening or watching, because right now I care more about NASCAR than most other things that I would be writing about. That is, unless you'd like to hear about the computer games that I'm playing addictively at the moment. (Here's a hint: Learn to speak German, and you'd be welcome. Jawhol, herr kaleun.)

My personal prediction is that Robby'll blow his bloody Menard engine shortly after the race starts, assuming he doesn't get caught up in a wreck thanks to some back-of-the-pack scrub. He has, however, said that he doesn't regret using the Menard-built engines, so go figure. If the Menard people can get their Winston Cup engine program together, hopefully Robby'll start being a competitor, which would be nice.

Congrats to Jeff Burton on his finish in the Sharpie Professional 250 at Bristol Motor Speedway this past Monday.

NB: A brief look at Robby's site indicates that this weekend's livery will be the purple and yellow Harrah's Casino livery. Good God, that's a hideous scheme, but if they keep the checks flowing, who cares? I prefer, for a variety of reasons, the Jim Beam livery myself.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Jesus God Almighty. NASCAR defies comprehension at times. It's a damned motorsports competition, not an avenue for Jeff [expletive deleted] Hammond to go to some wrestling venue and act like a fool. Professional "sports entertainment" wrestling (contradistinguished from Greco-Roman wrestling, which is what schools and the Olympics do) isn't worthy of watching, and why should my motorsport be sullied with wrestling?

In related news, NASCAR Nation has put Krista Voda in the female anchor's slot tonight, apparently moving Courtney George to the roving anchor spot. This is not a bad thing. If this ponderous exercise in low-grade television journalism (or is that "extreme reporting"?) is going to continue, then we might as well see Speed Channel's best blond.

Note to wardrobe, re Krista Voda: Black shirts & pink pants match for Lisa Robertson on QVC when she's hawking cubic zirconia. They do not work for motorsports broadcasting. That is, unless you want to put Ralph Sheheen in a black shirt and pink pants. That could be amusing.

NOTE: The Speed Channel website hates Firefox. Pages will render, but the text is way down below. Just scroll down.

UPDATE: It appears that others don't like NASCAR Nation, either. From various referrer links, I got to something called The Frontstretch, wherein angry NASCAR fans (Geoffrey Norman's fundamentalists speak, I suppose) voice their dislike for the program. As for me, I'd like to know where this whole "nation" thing got started for fans of a sport or team. Even "Red Sox Nation" barely makes sense.

This post, aside from mistaking Courtney George for a beautiful woman, seems to be on-point. Exactly why do I need to be told how to be a NASCAR fan? I spend money, I watch the races, I buy the stuff. End of story. What's a racing lifestyle show, anyways?

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

I am generally pleased by the fact that the National Review prints columns by Geoffrey Norman on sports. I generally read every column that is posted of his, which is more than I can say for Stephen Moore, Bruce Bartlett, Randy Barnett, or Cathy Seipp. (You've ranted at length against most of those authors, haven't you? I vaguely seem to recall you swearing you'd read Meghan Cox Gurdon before you'd read those guys.--Ed.)

Full disclosure: I've been a NASCAR fan since I was able to comprehend fast-moving hunks of metal around a large oval. My father has been going to races since the early 1960s, and I've been going with him since the Reagan Administration. I go to at least two Winston Cup races per year, and you'll always find me clad in a driver's hat and Ray-Ban aviator sunglasses, both firmly clamped to my head by a pair of David Clark Model 10A hearing protectors. I've stood in line for drivers' autographs, I've cursed a variety of drivers---some of whom no longer live, alas---and I've sat through interminable delays, all for the chance to watch vehicles race. It's a fantastic feeling to stand with over a hundred thousand people for hours on end watching a race. If you don't understand it, I simply can't help you. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 02:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1537 words, total size 9 kb.

I'm watching NASCAR Nation again, and what is this:

1. Courtney George's shirt is buttoned. Hooray; they listened.

2. A NASCAR fashion show. Jesus God Almighty. What are they thinking?

More later, if I recover from the shock of this.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm watching NASCAR Nation on Speed, and two things have occurred to me:

1. The addition of women into motorsports broadcasting strikes me as making as much sense as planting me in Julia Child's world. While I might be able to be a decent cook, I would look out of place the entire time and my presence would indicate some sort of ulterior motive. I would say that it's similar with this latest effort in the absolute equality-of-results drive. Lawrence Summers has gotten a little mangled by this, apparently. At any rate, Jeanne Zelasko was tolerable (barely) because she had already proven her chops as a sports reporter on baseball and other things.¹

I miss the good old days of Jack Arute, Chris Economaki, and men like that in the broadcast booth. Oh, for the better time when Darrell Waltrip was dominating the track and not embarrassing himself on air. Chris Myers, go back to ESPN.

2. Whoever is doing the in-studio presentation---perhaps Courtney George---needs to button her shirt. Call wardrobe and have her redone, thank you. Lose the chintzy necklace.

Jesus God Almighty, Janice Dean just did a weather report. My God, she's been hit with the FNC Ugly Stick a few times. I used to like hearing Janice in the early hours of Imus in the Morning, but I wouldn't begrudge her a career move. After all, working with the I-man can't always be the most fun thing in the world. How one restrains from garroting Sid Rosenberg is always beyond me.

God, I regret the mainstreaming of Winston Cup racing. Note to the Speed Channel: I won't be watching your NASCAR Nation again. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 08:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington, D.C. city council has voted 6-4 to approve public funding for a stadium to house the Washington Nationals once they transfer from Montreal and finish with their time in RFK Memorial Stadium.

Sayeth the Washington Post: "At the end of a seven-hour meeting, with [Mayor Anthony] Williams (D) watching in the packed hearing room, the council voted 6 to 4 to build the stadium along the Anacostia River near the Navy Yard and South Capitol Street. Three members, including Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D), abstained."

I'm told by a friend of mine who lives up that way that the area where this stadium would be built is essentially a slum, and that it'll be dangerous to go to games there. That would be unfortunate; one would think that if the Anacostia Yard is still open---apparently it is---the Navy presence would help keep the area from being too dangerous, but of course it's up to the individual ticket buyers.

If Mayor Williams wants people to come to the Nationals' new park---sure to be named something stupid like Prilosec Field---then perhaps he ought to make sure that the D.C. police have a strong presence in the area before, during, and after construction. This would of course entail arresting malingerers and other near-criminal types, so maybe that's asking too much.

At any rate, the Post article indicates that there's a fight going on over the whole thing in the D.C. council, and that is, as usual, to be expected. At any rate, congratulations to the franchise.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 04:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

While setting up the link to the Washington Nationals over on the right, I noticed that there was a new Q&A posted, with Washington, D.C. mayor Anthony Williams. I'm already predisposed not to like the guy, after his whining about "Senators" not being an appropriate name for the team due to the fact that Washington "has no senators", despite there being one hundred of them reporting for work several months out of the year.

That being said, at least Williams knows his place when it comes to the President:

Williams: I think if President [Bush] were to come to the game, he should throw out the first pitch. I would hope that he would come. I would like to personally invite him to come. I think as an American and as a Washington, D.C., citizen, I would like to see the president throw out the ball.

He's apparently a Cardinals fan, too. That's just rich. Neener neener, Mayor Williams; my favorite team embarrassed your favorite team. (I hope you're living well; by my count it could be 2090 before you see them victorious again. --Ed.)

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.