Letters to the Editor
Marcos22
Published Letters: 45 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Time to fully exorcise the demons of 1986.
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Three teams suffered greatly in 1986, and I think it's only appropriate that after the Angels won in 2002 and the Red Sox last year, that the Astros are next in line. The White Sox have a fantastic team, but I just have a feeling it's the Astros year. I sure hope so.
-
The tag
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mmm, i don't know - he probably missed the tag on his arm but it's not as obvious as everyone makes it out to be...
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/photo?slug=sts12810200219.nlcs_astros_cardinals_sts128&prov=AP
I mean that pic it looks like he's tagged.
-
Changing your tune
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ah, let's all remind ourselves of King's predictions at the start of the playoffs:
...
LCS predictions: Astros over Cardinals, Angels over Red Sox
World Series prediction: Astros over Angels
...
Pretty sharp in the NL, but not doing so well in the AL. Anyway, I feel better the Astros being the underdog for some reason - I still don't get this nonsense the White Sox have better starting pitching. They have some good arms, but the Angels - well - they stunk. I have a feeling the 'stros will hit the ball better than anyone is expecting.
I myself don't know who will win, but I'm of course pulling for my Astros. And well, the White Sox may have waited since 1917 but they have won it, and they're young, they'll be back - this is probably the last chance for the Bagwell and Biggio so I think that makes us more of a sentimental favorite. Not that that's likely to have any bearing on who actually wins, but we'll see.
-
How about "Case Closed"
[Read the article: The top five books on the Kennedy assassination]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Intsead of all these books that seem to promulgated a conspiracy theory, how about Case Closed by Gerald Posner, which argues (convingly) that Oswalt acted alone? At least balance your list.
Marcos
-
Knee Down, mystery touchdown, let's clear our heads.
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, for one - even if they review the play and say Young's knee was down, the Longhorns have the ball 1st and 10 on the 11 - I think it's safe to say the Longhorns had at least a 50-50 shot at still getting a touchdown so it's silly to say they would not have had been down by 5 at the end of the game. In fact, if anything they would have gotten the touchdown and the extra point and been down by 4.
And, I totally agree with tbrandel; we have NO idea what the outcome of the game would be if the play is reviewed and he's ruled down at the 11. They might have fumbled on the next play. They might have gotten 7 points on the next play and gone on to win the game by 21 or not at all. Who knows. Every subsequent play and play call would have been slightly different, such that by the end, totally different outcome. chaos effect and all. So, let's stop acting as if we you change one play and everything else stays the same.
Anyway, seems to be a lot of "oh if only USC had done this" they would have won. How about UT not fumbling the first stupid time they touched the ball on the punt. Or the missed field goal. Or getting stuffed on 4th down at mid-field. Etc, etc, etc.
The game is what it was - let's just take it all as whole and not try to reconstruct the if this or if that. The whole of the game that we actually had was pretty damn good - let's not quibble so much about what might have been.
-
I'm no grinch!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, I don't mind analysis of the defensive game plan (like someone saying USC needed to put more pressure on Young) or Big Picture things, but the whole "if only they'd reviewed that one play" thing just seems silly. Especially early in the game, since as I said, everything plays out differently even if you change one thing.
Though I suppose you could argue that if USC had gone up 14-0 instead of Bush pitching the ball to no one in the first quarter... that might have turned things in USC's favor.
Anyway, I'm just reading a lot of "USC Should have won if not just for this one play here, or that one play there .... and as a Longhorn fan and UT alum (and of the least obnoxious UT fans, my USC-alum friend tells me) - I am starting to find it all just a wee bit tiresome. You know they'd have won if they could have stopped Vince Young from leading UT to touchdowns twice in about 6 minutes, that's how they could have won. :)
I do feel for any non-Longhorns in Texas (like say all the Aggie fans), because a great many UT fans will become quite insufferable over the next few weeks.
So, is the 2005 national championship (since the season was almost all in 2005) or is this the 2006 one? I ask because UT won the baseball title in 2005, so I think UT won the baseball and football championship in the same year, and that may be a first - but no one in the press seems to have picked up on it. (UT baseball is ranked preseason #1 for 2006 too, btw.)