The Pop Culture Information Society...
These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.
Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.
This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.
Check for new replies or respond here...
Subject: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Max Power on 09/02/06 at 9:37 pm
Who do you think it is and why?
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 09/02/06 at 9:49 pm
Why don't you actually tell us what you think instead of just making random topics and then disappearing.
Unless someone/a team outright cheated, I'd say there are no undeserving champions. There.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Rice_Cube on 09/02/06 at 10:01 pm
Some would argue that the 1999 Dallas Stars weren't deserving of the Stanley Cup because Brett Hull's skate was in the crease when he scored the Cup-winner in Game 6.
Some would argue that St. Louis should have won another World Series in 1985 if not for an umpire's boneheaded call...
But really, at the end of it all, the deserving team won. A professional athlete should be good enough to ignore boneheadedness and persevere. I guess that's not possible on the clinching play of a series though, eh?
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Max Power on 09/02/06 at 10:09 pm
Depends on what you think.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Max Power on 09/02/06 at 10:10 pm
Some would argue that the 1999 Dallas Stars weren't deserving of the Stanley Cup because Brett Hull's skate was in the crease when he scored the Cup-winner in Game 6.
Some would argue that St. Louis should have won another World Series in 1985 if not for an umpire's boneheaded call...
But really, at the end of it all, the deserving team won. A professional athlete should be good enough to ignore boneheadedness and persevere. I guess that's not possible on the clinching play of a series though, eh?
Wasn't the Royals going to tie the game even without the call?
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 09/02/06 at 10:11 pm
Wasn't the Royals going to tie the game even without the call?
The Royals weren't batting......the Cardinals were.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Max Power on 09/16/06 at 4:36 pm
[quote author=
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Max Power on 10/18/06 at 3:29 pm
Some would argue that the 1999 Dallas Stars weren't deserving of the Stanley Cup because Brett Hull's skate was in the crease when he scored the Cup-winner in Game 6.
I doubted they would bounce back when a walk-off shot was scored.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: freeridemt on 10/20/06 at 10:45 am
This the RedBirds 17th trip to the WS. They must be doing something right.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Max Power on 11/03/06 at 5:25 pm
This the RedBirds 17th trip to the WS. They must be doing something right.
While the Tigers' pitching isn't the problem, their pitcher's defense is ( except for Kenny Rogers ). ;D
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Derek on 02/09/07 at 11:29 pm
1994 Houston Rockets- Knicks had 3-2 lead
2000 New Jersey Devils- Flyers had a 3-1 lead on them in the ECF.
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks- Yanks had 2-1 lead in 9th inning of game 7.
2002 Anaheim Angels- Giants were 6 outs away from their first title since '54.
2002 Los Angeles Lakers- Kings got screwed in game 6.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/10/07 at 1:53 am
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks- Yanks had 2-1 lead in 9th inning of game 7.
Really didn't need to be reminded of that.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Derek on 02/10/07 at 8:20 pm
Really didn't need to be reminded of that.
Believe me, I spent the first 13 years of my life in New York, and grew up a huge Yanks fan, and I was not happy at all myself.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/10/07 at 8:27 pm
Rivera threw to the wrong base. If he had thrown to first instead of trying for the double play the Yanks probably would have won, or worst-case, gone to extra innings. Oh well.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/10/07 at 10:27 pm
Believe me, I spent the first 13 years of my life in New York, and grew up a huge Yanks fan, and I was not happy at all myself.
At that exact moment of you-know-who's hit.....I knocked a bookshelf over and broke it. Good times.
Rivera threw to the wrong base. If he had thrown to first instead of trying for the double play the Yanks probably would have won, or worst-case, gone to extra innings. Oh well.
Please stop.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Derek on 02/11/07 at 1:56 pm
Rivera threw to the wrong base. If he had thrown to first instead of trying for the double play the Yanks probably would have won, or worst-case, gone to extra innings. Oh well.
Although that might be true, you can't fault Rivera. He made the right move, he just happened to make a horrible throw.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/12/07 at 11:20 pm
BOSTON RED SOX!! I can't talk about yet, there's a knife in my Yankee heart and it is still bleeding.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/12/07 at 11:22 pm
BOSTON RED SOX!! I can't talk about yet, the knife in my Yankee heart is still bleeding.
And I thought talking about 2001 was as bad as it was going to get..................
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/12/07 at 11:23 pm
BOSTON RED SOX!! I can't talk about yet, the knife in my Yankee heart is still bleeding.
I don't mean to be a tool, but how can you say that after the Yankees dropped four straight? It was an unbelievable collapse.
Don't worry, their deal with the Devil is over.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/12/07 at 11:25 pm
I don't mean to be a tool, but how can you say that after the Yankees dropped four straight? It was an unbelievable collapse.
Don't worry, their deal with the Devil is over.
That's the knife!
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/12/07 at 11:41 pm
I don't mean to be a tool, but how can you say that after the Yankees dropped four straight? It was an unbelievable collapse.
*sobs into desk*
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 2:14 am
*sobs into desk*
I still can't accept the Yankees losing that series. I just can't give Boston any credit for that winning it all, they just plain SUCK!! I can only think is that the baseball Gods needed a good laugh...Boston? wins a World Series? by humiliating of the Yankees? now that's funny story! because everybody knows BOSTON SUCKS! HA! HA! HA! Yeah, thats the only thing I have to believe in is why the Yankees lost in the manner they did.
His bloody red sock was a bunch crap too, the world knew he needed an excuse if he lost the game. Mr.Shilling you're a big phoney, and wearing that World Series ring that you think you won, but deep down in your heart you know you really don't deserve it because you know that BOSTON SUCKS, but the baseball Gods needed a good laugh and nothing can be more hilarious then you and the rest of Red Sox team wearing World Series rings...am I bitter? yeaaaah, will I get over it? not until the Yankees win a couple more World Series and see the Boston drool for another one over the next 85 years.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 2:37 am
Some of Schilling's former teammates think the "bloody sock" was faked. If you watched that game, and caught the number of times the FOX cameras panned to his ankle, that blood stain never spread, and it never got dark. We all know that blood turns brown when it dries because of oxidation. That thing never dried.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/14/07 at 10:35 am
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact is, Schilling won two "undeserved" championships against the Yankees, as Derek pointed out above.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 11:19 am
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact is, Schilling won two "undeserved" championships against the Yankees, as Derek pointed out above.
You're not the bearer of bad news, I know all that. I'm just saying that even his former teammates thought the bloody sock was staged. It wasn't just bitter Yankee fans.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/14/07 at 11:20 am
You're not the bearer of bad news, I know all that. I'm just saying that even his former teammates thought the bloody sock was staged. It wasn't just bitter Yankee fans.
It probably was, but he won, so point is now moot...sportscasters need all the random personality angles they can get because baseball is so godawful boring to watch on TV...gotta hear themselves talk about the most inane things y'know ;)
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 11:24 am
It probably was, but he won, so point is now moot...sportscasters need all the random personality angles they can get because baseball is so godawful boring to watch on TV...gotta hear themselves talk about the most inane things y'know ;)
Joe Buck and Tim McCarver can die.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/14/07 at 11:26 am
Now see, if they enforced the 20 second pitch clock, reduced the number of impromptu time-out/psych-out calls, visits on the mound, etc...
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 11:27 am
They can still die. I have never heard two announcers that make me hate baseball more than those two proto-losers do.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 5:39 pm
Some of Schilling's former teammates think the "bloody sock" was faked. If you watched that game, and caught the number of times the FOX cameras panned to his ankle, that blood stain never spread, and it never got dark. We all know that blood turns brown when it dries because of oxidation. That thing never dried.
It looked like a red magic marker stain. Maybe it was a smudged word saying "right foot goes in here".
Some of Schilling's former teammates think the "bloody sock" was faked. If you watched that game, and caught the number of times the FOX cameras panned to his ankle, that blood stain never spread, and it never got dark. We all know that blood turns brown when it dries because of oxidation. That thing never dried.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 5:44 pm
Now see, if they enforced the 20 second pitch clock, reduced the number of impromptu time-out/psych-out calls, visits on the mound, etc...
I think it's part of the game and they'll leave it alone all those side bars adds intensity to the play.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 5:47 pm
Joe Buck and Tim McCarver can die.
And they can take the Fox network with them, they suck covering a world series worse then the Red Sox....naaaaa! Boston sucks more.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 5:49 pm
And they can take the Fox network with them, they suck covering a world series worse then the Red Sox....naaaaa! Boston sucks more.
I HATE baseball on FOX. All the annoying graphics, the stupid pop-up info boxes, Buck and McCarver.....I hate that fact that living in Georgia, if the Yankees are FOX, unless they're playing the Sox.....I can't see them because of Selig and the black-out rules. I have MLB.TV and that works great, but I can't watch all the games I want to watch. Selig can go straight to Hades, as far as I'm concerned. He's ruined the game.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 6:14 pm
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact is, Schilling won two "undeserved" championships against the Yankees, as Derek pointed out above.
Maybe it's has something to do with his name...Shilling, what does it mean besides a 2 bit English copper, maybe the word Shilling being English and the word Yankee given to a trader the the Crown have a connection to these two "undeserved" championships...REVENGE! Maybe the sprit of a dead Englishman Yankee hater with a warped sense of humor make the Yankees look helpless against Shilling...
Am I reaching? that knife is in my heart without a reason and I'm looking for anything to make sense that collapes, anything!
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 6:18 pm
I let 2004 go probably 2 weeks after it happened. It was painfully obvious the Red Sox wanted it more, so I let them have it. At some point during Game 6, I realized the Yankees were not going to win. They had their chance and Tom Gordon blew it in Game 4. Not to mention, the bats went arctic.
2001.....I couldn't eat for a few days after that. I had a hard time letting that one go.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 6:42 pm
I HATE baseball on FOX. All the annoying graphics, the stupid pop-up info boxes, Buck and McCarver.....I hate that fact that living in Georgia, if the Yankees are FOX, unless they're playing the Sox.....I can't see them because of Selig and the black-out rules. I have MLB.TV and that works great, but I can't watch all the games I want to watch. Selig can go straight to Hades, as far as I'm concerned. He's ruined the game.
We get the Yankees on the YES channel except for the playoffs and series.
We used to turn down the sound on the TV and only watch the horrible Fox coverage of these series and turn on the radio and listen to John Sterling on WFAN give the play by play of the game. It was great not to listen to those bozo's on Fox and only had to put up with Fox's rotten telecast. It didn't last long, Fox caught wind of the millions turning their sound off and listening to the game on the local radio station that they put a five second delay to the television scene enough of a delay to distort the game for you...did I mention that Fox SUCKED? well they do and hope they lose the rights to cover the playoffs and series and get out of town and they can take that puppet for the owners Selig with them...he sucks also for not throwing Bonds out of baseball, Payola still exsists.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 7:09 pm
I let 2004 go probably 2 weeks after it happened. It was painfully obvious the Red Sox wanted it more, so I let them have it. At some point during Game 6, I realized the Yankees were not going to win. They had their chance and Tom Gordon blew it in Game 4. Not to mention, the bats went arctic.
2001.....I couldn't eat for a few days after that. I had a hard time letting that one go.
Gordon didn't lose it, Torres lost it for putting him in there in the first place. He was never good under pressure. I think Mr.Torres loses his mind sometimes and thought he was putting in Stanton.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 7:15 pm
Gordon didn't lose it, Torres lost it for putting him in there in the first place. He was never good under pressure. I think Mr.Torres loses his mind sometimes and thought he was putting in Stanton.
I really think, looking back, Gordon was the best bet. Gordon shouldn't have horked up his nerve before he went out there.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 7:41 pm
It probably was, but he won, so point is now moot...sportscasters need all the random personality angles they can get because baseball is so godawful boring to watch on TV...gotta hear themselves talk about the most inane things y'know ;)
Rice Cube! what is insane here is you saying " baseball is so godawful to watch on TV"...? That's sacrilege! to the gallows with you. Baseball on TV is the most exciting thing to watch next to porn! Pitchers dueling to a 1-0 win in the is the most exciting game to watch over all to a true baseball fan, I'm guessing your not, that's to bad, your missing a lot of the real game, or am I wrong and you just want to rattle the cage?
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Rice_Cube on 02/14/07 at 7:51 pm
Rice Cube! what is insane here is you saying " baseball is so godawful to watch on TV"...? That's sacrilege! to the gallows with you. Baseball on TV is the most exciting thing to watch next to porn! Pitchers dueling to a 1-0 win in the is the most exciting game to watch over all to a true baseball fan, I'm guessing your not, that's to bad, your missing a lot of the real game, or am I wrong and you just want to rattle the cage?
No, it is boring, that's why the announcers have to talk so darned much to fill in all the dead space.
I'd much rather watch it in person, because that's much more exciting. I also like playing it as a video game because I can call hit-and-runs and squeeze bunts and blind steals at will ;)
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 7:58 pm
I don't like questioning someone else's fanhood.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 8:14 pm
I let 2004 go probably 2 weeks after it happened. It was painfully obvious the Red Sox wanted it more, so I let them have it. At some point during Game 6, I realized the Yankees were not going to win. They had their chance and Tom Gordon blew it in Game 4. Not to mention, the bats went arctic.
2001.....I couldn't eat for a few days after that. I had a hard time letting that one go.
I really think, looking back, Gordon was the best bet. Gordon shouldn't have horked up his nerve before he went out there.
Yeah! he should have horked up his nerve but he can't because he's a loser. Philadelphia will soon find out when he blows the 1 run lead games as a closer, he can't do it, never did and never will, he good when he's 5 runs ahead and he blew many of those games to.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 8:24 pm
I don't like questioning someone else's fanhood.
No, it is boring, that's why the announcers have to talk so darned much to fill in all the dead space.
I'd much rather watch it in person, because that's much more exciting. I also like playing it as a video game because I can call hit-and-runs and squeeze bunts and blind steals at will ;)
Yeah, I agree with you there, being at the game is much better than watching it TV. I never played any of the video games yet I'll have to look into it, maybe I can learn a few new things in strategies.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/14/07 at 8:25 pm
I don't like questioning someone else's fanhood.
???
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/14/07 at 10:02 pm
???
Telling someone they aren't a "real" fan or a "true" fan, irks me. No one here is an expert on baseball fanhood, so I don't jive with telling people what kind of fan they are or what kind of fan they think they are.
My little idiosyncrasy.
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: hot_wax on 02/15/07 at 1:45 am
Telling someone they aren't a "real" fan or a "true" fan, irks me. No one here is an expert on baseball fanhood, so I don't jive with telling people what kind of fan they are or what kind of fan they think they are.
My little idiosyncrasy.
Oh! is that what bothers you? you mean something like the jive you're giving me? I'm sorry that I irked you, I thought we all were having a good old jaw boning on baseball so I ranked Ice Cube for his fan loyalty, no big deal! him saying baseball is boring to watch on TV is like him ranking anyone who enjoys watching baseball on TV, so we rattle each other cages, no big deal! it makes for good copy, no malice intented, he knew that, I even agreed with him being at a game is much better, but when I have to be critiqued by a third party on my reply who can't see the the jaw boning between the lines sets themselves up for ranking also. But I'll be easy on you this time and hope your mental hang-ups don't get in our way in being friends and continue to discuss "very important" issues on sports in future discussions. Frankly, dispite your hand slapping and ignorance in jaw boning I like your sports savvyness...friends till the end?
Hot Wax
Subject: Re: Least deserving championship winners?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 02/15/07 at 1:52 am
As much as I love Andy, I don't know if the Cards were the most deserving of winners. They were by far the weakest team in the playoffs, and I was really shocked at how Detroit just folded like a cheap suit. Frankly reminds me of how Boston won in '04. I don't know if it was so much of them being better as the other team just going cold.
Check for new replies or respond here...
Copyright 1995-2020, by Charles R. Grosvenor Jr.