Rants

Dirty HGH Player vs T.O.

Jeromey Balderrama

Let me get one thing straight: I can’t stand T.O.  My disdain towards Owens has been well documented here and here, so it really messed with my mind when I write a post defending him.  But here I go.

Last Sunday T.O. broke his streak of 185 games with at least when catch, when he went absolutely stat-less against the Saints.  Obligated to go to the Press  Conference, tried to be as short as possible, repeatedly saying “I just go with the plays that are called.”  Owens was pissed, and whether that is right or wrong Rodney Harrison lashed out at him on NBC’s “Football Night In America”, with this gem of a quote:

"He’s a clown. He’s all about the circus show and the cameras, and it’s all about that. But you best believe he’ll have Shawn Springs in his grill and Brandon Meriweather will be putting his helmet down his throat. So I’m excited about seeing that on Monday." [From USAToday]

I think Rodney Harrison is the perfect example why players should have a TV waiting period, or spend a year in purgatory (aka the NFL Network) before they get these National Network TV Gigs.  Harrison has a right to speak his mind, and I’m not going to argue that it should be taken away from him.  However, for him to make remarks that disparaging on “Football Night”, with his national platform, shows pretty poor judgment.  I really have no idea what NBC was thinking when they hired Harrison.  Throughout his career he was continually voted the dirtiest player in the NFL, and he doesn’t seem to have that charisma that other former players possess when they’re on TV.  It seems Harrison is only engaging when other commentators ask him a question, and when he responds it looks like the other commentators are hoping Harrison won’t punch them out.

T.O., through his Twitter account fired back, in pretty hilarious fashion:

"I could less about Rodney Harrison! Anybody tht using steroids, yes STEROIDS rodney, is a cheater & cheated the game! … Is tht Y u used steroids b/c u were worried about ur stats or ws it b/c u were losing it? Lol! U’re a loser & a cheater? Got any steroid … Hey rodney! Send me sum steroids 2 the Bills facility next week!" [From USAToday]

Owens is talking about Harrison’s 4-game suspension for using HGH in 2007, which was a pretty classic response.  How did Harrison fire back? By completely ignoring the Steroid fact:

"When it comes down to it, I’m a champion. He’ll never have that on his resume. He’ll never be a champion. He’ll look at his stats and say I was a great football player, but I was never a champion. You always have to stand up and be accountable for your actions. As a football player you have to be accountable. Regardless of whether you had 10 catches or zero catches.” [Dan Patrick Show]

Classy Rodney, in the same phrase that you completely ignore the HGH comments, you talk about need to be accountable for your actions.  As much as it pains me to say it, T.O. looks like the guy on top of this one. It was great that he followed up that phrase by demonstrating that he’s more of a Patriots mouthpiece than he is a studio analyst.

With these analysts booths growing as large as they are, is it too much to ask to put some kind of standards in choosing who they put in front of a national audience?  Give players a year or two to get out of the player mentality and shift towards a better analytical contributor.

The Chicago Olympics – why I hope we’re out

Jeromey Balderrama

Voting is taking place as I write this, so by the time you read this my points may be moot, but let me just say this: I hope Chicago doesn’t get the 2016 Olympics.

You may call me unpatriotic, but hear me out: I enjoy watching the Olympic games. My wife and I rallied around the TV every night last year to cheer on athletes in these sports that we normally don’t care about.  It was a fantastic experience, and made me appreciate the Olympics at its best.

Now fast-forward to today, in Athens, which hosted the 2004 Olympics.  After all of the romanticism of hosting the Olympics in Greece, all of the effort Greece went into putting their best foot forward – now five years later are left with decaying buildings that nobody uses and covered with hoodlum graffiti.

The Olympics at their best represent world unity through friendly competition, but you also have to accept the Games at their worst – an extravagant attempt to make a buck.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m a staunch capitalist, but as a capitalist I must weigh in the production costs with the outcome revenue – and from my perspective shows me that things don’t add up.

Did you see how over-the-top the opening ceremony was last year?  It left me wondering if it would ever be topped. The problem is that future hosts of the Olympics will try to top that, spending countless billions of dollars to build newer facilities and real-time movie effects.  It’s like the Super Bowl: In the end all of the activities and preparations leading up to the event simply just overshadow the actual events.

I don’t mean to get political, but the way President Obama is lobbying for this is equally over the top.  On the wake of Iran admitting they have secret nuclear activities that have been exposed, followed by testing of their missiles, what does the president do? Hop on a plane – not to address this matter with other world leaders – but to lobby the IOC in Denmark for the Olympics in his hometown.  Really? Is this the most pressing thing that we need?  Just so we can build a bunch of facilities and infrastructure whose post-Olympics usage can’t justify their cost.

We’ll see how this pans out, but I won’t be disappointed if Rio de Janeiro gets South America’s first Olympic games.

Not Twitterpated huh?

Jeromey Balderrama

Over breakfast I came across an editorial in Fort Collins Now, called “Not twitterpated over Twitter” where Rebecca Boyle poked holes in the hype about Twitter, specifically about Twitter becoming an outlet for information. The leading quote: “Why would you need to read a Jurassic-era newspaper article about politics when you can follow the politicians themselves, who will tell you everything you need to know in 140 characters or less?”

I would suggest reading the article to get the context of my response.

What I find funny about the article is that Boyle insists that “newspapers provide context and meaning, both essential to our democracy”, yet in her own article she hypocritically takes the tweets of politicians out of context. By doing that, it’s easy to think that all these guys post about is what they’re having for lunch and who they’re with.  Part of exercising democracy is having transparency in your public figures. While traditional media has enjoyed being that gatekeeper, the pervasiveness of Twitter now gives constituents the opportunity to get a glimpse of their representatives, see what they’re working on (answering that question, “What do you even do in these sessions?”), but also understanding that our elected officials are people too – with families, friends and activities they love.

“Politicos can rip their opponents and highlight the work they’re doing without relying on the media to spread those messages.”

So instead of trying to decipher the media’s interpretation (complete with bias and possible agenda) of an official’s words, I can get the information directly from the source, where at least I have a sense of their own agenda.

Boyle brought up the report of the low Twitter site retention rate (estimated 40%), a stat offered by Nielsen, which doesn’t take into account that much of Twitter’s interaction is not based on the web site (the same way that MySpace and Facebook requires).  People access it through various tools and clients, as well as texting on their cell phone.  That said, the retention rate is a stat measured when growth happens.  The last time I checked, newspapers haven’t enjoyed any recent growth.

The most asinine quote of the article has to be this one:

“And many people who have been on the Twitter bandwagon promptly hopped off last week in the midst of the swine flu outbreak, when the site helped fuel a panic most public health officials have said is unwarranted.”

Unwarranted panic, as opposed to the tempered coverage offered by traditional media?  Give me a break! Every news program had this as their leading story every night! This was on the front page of every newspaper all week long!  This is the pot calling the kettle black!  If media was able to offer that context – which they supposedly have an abundance of – then why wasn’t this offered with all of the Swine Flu coverage?

Here’s the bottom line on Twitter: Twitter is what you make of it.  Some people will go and simply look to consume tweets from their favorite celebrity, but there are a degree of Twitter users that follow people who share their same interests and commonalities.  I follow people who live in my community, share my passions (drumming, technology, sports), and offer great insight in the things that I care about.  I don’t stop with simply consuming, I also offer my own insight.  Twitter is meant to facilitate conversation, and that’s probably the toughest thing for newspaper “dinosaurs” to grasp: a two-way media street.  Instead of relying on someone to ask questions for me, I can ask the questions of my figures myself.

And yes, you can also use Twitter to find out that LeVar Buron likes the new Star Trek movie.

Want to Twitter? Here’s how to screw it up…

Jeromey Balderrama

Note: This is part of a series of posts I’m starting of “Here’s how to screw it up.”  In the course of my daily life I see a lot of people trying different things, and do a lot of things to screw it up.  This isn’t meant as an attack on the people who do these things, but rather the actions themselves.  Please feel free to add or debate anything listed here, my hope is that by looking at the way things are done poorly, we can see how things can be done well.

If it has been apparent over the last few weeks, Twitter has become mainstream.  You hear it on the nightly newscasts, sporting events, awards shows and the list of celebrities on Twitter is just blowing up.  After using Twitter for over 2 years and over 3,300 Tweets later, I’ve seen a lot of people try to take up the Twitter ball and fumble miserably.

So if you’re looking to get started on Twitter, here are some things you could do to screw it up:

  • Following significantly (+20%) more people than the number that follows you: I understand when you’re starting out you obviously need to invest in following some people, but there’s nothing that screams “loser” quite like following 2x or 3x the followers you have.
  • Use Twitter solely as an outlet to pimp yourself. There’s something to be said about personal branding and Twitter being an opportunity to do so, but if the only thing you’re contributing to the Twitter is talking about what you’re doing, posting links to your blog, talking about your services, etc – then you’re missing the point.  Converse with other people, say clever things and offer insight. I don’t want to see a never-ending commercial about yourself.  It’s pretty easy to see right through it, and people will wise up and drop you.
  • Try to be an Expert at Twitter, and market that “skill”.  Let me save you the snake-oil money you’d spend on these “Experts” by offering you some free advice: Update consistently, be yourself, engage in conversations and try to add value.  Do you need an expert to teach you to use a cell phone?  Trust me, you’ll be fine on Twitter.  People will follow you if you’re interesting, not because you’re showing your LinkedIn URL in your Twitter background.
  • Use Terms like “Tweeple” or say “Tweet ya later” We get it, Twitter is a great new form of communication and way to get information, but it doesn’t constitute it’s own vocabulary.  “Tweet ya later” may be a bit subjective, but when did someone say “Cell ya later” on their phone?
  • Directly command or take advantage of your followers. The list of who can get away with this is very short: Shaq, Jason Calacanis.  Everyone else simply looks like a tool trying to wield an imaginary gauntlet.  It’s one thing to invite your followers to do something, or even ask a favor, but don’t order me around.
  • Constantly send @ replies to celebrity Twitterers.  I understand, we all want to get that magical response from a celebrity Twitterer that we can print out and frame, but you’re not going to do that by pretending to be every celebrity’s best friend and sending them 25 replies.
  • Misuse Twitter lingo. Not to contradict point #3, but there are a few terms that Twitter has coined: It’s called “TWEET-UP” not “TWITup”.
  • Repeat Tweet over the course of a few hours.  We heard it the first time, it just wasn’t that compelling.  It’s one thing to keep bringing up the same topic by adding something new – for example, when I talk about Greenfoot’s shows, I say that we’re sound-checking, watching the first band, etc.  I keep mentioning the show, but find ways to add value.
    I’m sure there’s plenty more, feel free to offer your “how to screw it up suggestions” in the comments.

Mac v PC thoughts

Jeromey Balderrama

The Internets are abuzz with the latest round of shots in the ongoing Mac v PC battle, this time lobbed by Microsoft in an ad that began running Thursday night – a pretty effective one at that.

It’s been funny watching the Mac faithful take arms and begin poking holes in the ad.  This blog on Fortune does an effective job of recapping the issue and that it’s worth the read.

Some of the complaints according to Fortune:

  • “Lauren” is an actress, not the ordinary American shopper the ad claims
  • The Apple Store scene was faked; before-and-after photos suggest that she never actually went into the store to try the computers
  • The $699 HP Pavillion dv7 she chose over a $999 MacBook is a mess. “It is the epitome of what people dislike about PCs,” writes Computerworld‘s Seth Weintraub. “It runs Vista Home on a slow AMD mobile processor . its screen is abysmal . its networking is five years old . it is loaded with crapware and trial antivirus software that will have to be purchased or wiped off the machine.”

I find the first two points pretty funny. First off, “Lauren” may be an actress, just like nearly everyone who appears in commercials is an actor/actress.  Does this make the situation any less realistic? “Lauren” may have actually never gone into the Apple store, but if she did she wouldn’t have found any 17″ laptops under the $1000 range (or perhaps even under the $2000 price range).

As for the third point, if I was in the same situation I would have gone ahead with the Intel processor, which would have likely added $100 to the price, still well below $1000.  I can’t speak to the screen quality, but the networking part is laughable too – haven’t WiFi standards been stagnant for the last five years? You still don’t see N-class networking widely adopted.  As for the crapware and adware, that is an unfortunate reality of PC’s, but crapware can be removed (with tools like Decrapifier) and there are plenty of free antivirus utilities that can be installed.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Macs and I think the OS is beautiful and stylish, but when people talk about buying a Mac, I tell them that buying a Mac for your next computer is essentially the same as saying your next car should be a BMW: They’re well-built, they give a good experience, but people who own them swear by the quality, while people who don’t own them cite the price and see them as a status symbol.

It’ll be interesting to see how Apple responds. I believe Fortune nailed a point when Engadget’s Joshua Topolsky said “This is almost a red-state-blue-state ad.”