Douchebag of the Year

Yes it's early in the year to be truly declaring the douchebag of the year already, but two things occurred to me.

1. I haven't called someone a douchebag in a while.
2. Colin Cowherd deserves the all-out wrath from every blog out there.

Deadspin reported yesterday about what amounted to a DNS attack on the sports blog, The Big Lead (I'd link to it, but at this moment it is still down). Cowherd essentially called for the attack to happen. The Deadspin article explains what a DNS attack is a little more, but it basically crashes the targeted site.

Wow, just wow. I realize Cowherd was a sniveling, insecure asshole, who rips off and plagiarizes sports blogs, but this is a whole new low for him. If any of you listen to Cowherd or ESPN Radio for that matter, we here at TMS urge you to boycott them immediately. It is time for ESPN to realize they aren't the only thing that matters and to rid themselves of cockweasels like Cowherd once and for all. Of course the Worldwide Leader divorced credibility for entertainment value a long time ago.

Colin Cowherd's "Big Announcement"

Many of you ESPN Radio listeners will surely not be sleeping tonight in anticipation of the "Big Announcement" on Colin Cowherd's show tomorrow morning. While we at ThunderMatt don't really care enough to try to get a scoop on this potentially life-altering event, we can surmise that it will pertain to one of two things. Either his lackluster radio show will now be broadcast on ESPNNews ala Mike and Mike (or possibly a live webcast each day), or Cowherd will be awarded with a spot in the announcer's booth for college football games. Whichever this may be, rest assured that Colin will bask in his own self-importance, yet remind you that he is a "normal guy". For more on his wiles, I would kindly refer you to the Colin Cowherd Project on the left sidebar. Thank you for your time.

CCP: Threesomes Are All the Rage

It's becoming clear to me that the Colin Cowherd Project is more difficult than I originally anticipated. It's one thing to force yourself to listen to a radio show that you hate, but it's a whole other ballgame to make yourself write about it every weekday. However, as grueling as this task may be, I know that I'm carrying it out for a greater good. A Herdless world is our goal, and together we can see this to fruition. On to the matter at hand...

Colin's monologue today dealt with the new team in the broadcast booth for the inauguration of Monday Night Football on ESPN. It centered on the third man on the telecast, the newest one being the debut of Tony Kornheiser. TK is mostly known to sports fans as one half of the show "Pardon the Interruption". He also had a long-running morning radio show on ESPN (Colin Cowherd actually replaced TK's show in many major markets). Most recently, along with his PTI duties, TK had been anchoring another radio show in the Washington, D.C. area.

Colin's gripe on one hand said that we need to tune in for a few weeks and give TK a chance to be successful, but at the same time, he kept hammering into our brains the fact that threesomes, as opposed to duos, rarely work out. He then waffled between these two stances, and named off about 10-15 threesomes that did work. But then he brought up how Dennis Miller in the MNF booth clearly did not pan out. Holy Christ, will you make up your mind? He wanted to argue that threesomes rarely click, but then contradicted that stance in the same argument. He clearly had no argument at all at this point.

From here, Colin just begins to ramble, much as I am now. He says something to the effect of the third man in the booth being like the third wheel on a date. I don't know about you guys, but when I was a swingin' bachelor, I was always sure to bring one of my wisecracking buddies along on my dates, just to see how awkward things could get. Colin also ponders how well the sports viewing public knows Kornheiser, if at all. Well Colin, we can guarantee he's far better known than you will ever be. And for the analysis...

Was his topic/view informative?
Not really. He's telling us to give Kornheiser a chance before he's even had his first chance. Colin doesn't trust the people to make up their own minds on something. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
Yeah, I'll let this slide. It was a good, different topic, I just wish he would have had something enlightening to say about it.
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
This one doesn't necessarily apply. But it would be nice if Cowherd made an attempt later this week to get Kornheiser on The Herd to chat about tonight's experience. He probably won't think of that though.
Did he use a fake voice?
Yes. Howard Cosell. Does everyone have to imitate Cosell? It's not bad enough that every comedian does a Cosell impersonation, it's that they all think theirs is great, including Cowherd. You are not Howard Cosell. Quit trying. -1
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
Yes, this whole "threesome" analogy grew quite tiresome after about 12 minutes. This is especially the case when he was waffling back and forth, constantly contradicting himself. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
Well, he pretty much assumed Kornheiser would bomb tonight. This coming from the guy that replaced Kornheiser. Interesting. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
One big contradiction wrapped inside his monologue. -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
Probably not, but I'm sure he pissed off Kornheiser fans. Then again most Kornheiser fans probably can't stand The Herd.

Final Score: 3 (out of 8) Makes me wonder if there really is any animosity at all between Cowherd and Kornheiser. Maybe they don't even know each other. We at ThunderMatt are rooting for Tony tonight.

CCP: Another Day Without Our Dear Leader

Cowherd was again absent from the airwaves today. There's really not much to be said. We've been analyzing his show for the last two weeks, and out of the ten shows, he's had a sub for three of them. Personally, I feel less angry when I arrive to work on the days in which he's gone. We'll see what next week brings. Fear not, for the Colin Cowherd Project is alive and thriving.

CCP: Colin is a No-Show

Subbing in for Colin today was Jason Smith. Therefore there will be no CCP analysis, though it warrants mentioning that Smith discussed the Clarett affair again. Can't we just put this guy behind us like The Ohio State University alumni are trying to do? Bah!

CCP: Arguing Just to Hear One's Voice

Colin led off his spasmadic monologue Wednesday with the most recent Maurice Clarett arrest. The former The Ohio State University running back was tasered and maced into submission by police, and found to have a cache of semi-automatic weapons and at least one open bottle of vodka in his vehicle. Oh yeah, and he was wearing a bulletproof vest. This is all really par for the course for Maurice Clarett. Basically, we all know Clarett is a terribly misguided individual, no argument there. But we will argue with Colin Cowherd.

Cowherd details the Clarett incident, then kicks it into "sarcastic cockweasel" mode. He claims that he recieved a bunch of e-mails from "liberal" listeners yesterday saying that he's too judgmental on people and he generalizes too much. We at Thunder Matt's don't necessarily care if he's judgmental, as long as he makes a coherent argument out of it. We do, however, take exception to his sweeping generalizations, as noted in past posts. Colin proceeds to sarcastically whine about how maybe he's being "too hard" and too judgmental in regards to Clarett's actions. Naturally, he would pick the one individual who we all know is a total lost cause socially and professionally. Any sports fan will tell you that Clarett needs to be put away and not given any more chances. So what is Cowherd arguing? Nothing. He's using the circumstances and his soap box to punch back at listeners who feel he's being too tough with his stances while not citing any real supporting evidence. He essentially conjured up a fake argument in an attempt to fight back at his critics, which just totally makes him sound like an ass-heel and a petulant child. I wish you could all listen to these rants, they're quite mind-boggling.

So Cowherd could only muscle about 9 minutes out of his fake Clarett argument, leaving room for more preening and self-congratulation. He wrapped up by discussing Mike Piazza's return to Shea Stadium, and how proud he was of Mets fans for cheering him. This was the backhanded compliment of the day, as he was sure to stress that Met fans are usually clueless and obnoxious. He also pointed out that Mets fans are not as classy as Yankee fans, but then turned around and bashed Yankee fan for booing A-Rod. In fact he completely contradicted himself on everything in this part of the monologue. Mets fans are obnoxious, no wait, they're classy. Yankee fans are classy, no wait, they're obnoxious.

But seriously, what fans don't cheer when one of their heroes return for the first time? Unless the departure ends up being a dick move on the player's part (see Roger Clemens heading to Toronto). It's usually not the player's fault for moving on (yes, there are exceptions. I hope I'm not generalizing). On to the analysis:

Was his topic/view informative?
No, he discussed and attempted to argue nothing that wasn't already obvious. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
No, this is pretty much the top sports story today. -1
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
Well, the other side of the story in regards to Clarett should not be heard. He gave up that right.
Did he use a fake voice?
No, but he did some gimmick where they made a song out of Old Navy selling bulletproof vests. That sucked up about 30 seconds of his monologue, proving that there isn't enough to talk about, and anything Clarett-related from here on out should be a non-story. And from now on, any of these produced gimmicks used on The Herd will fall under this category? -1
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
That "liberals" were being hard on him. The odd thing is that I couldn't tell if he was really pissed at liberals, or he was just mocking them in a good-natured way. Based on what Colin has shared about his life in the past, I would imagine he's fairly liberal. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm still taking a point off. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
His whole argument was a big convoluted exaggeration. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
He's been critical of A-Rod in the past, and worked in the fact that Yankee fans should be ashamed for booing their own hero. -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
This is a close call, as he managed to call out anyone who would consider themselves "liberal", and gave the backhanded compliment to Met fans as well as Yankee fans. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one and let him have the point. The whole thing was such an incoherent mess that most listeners probably felt like a cracked-out chimp with ADD trying to follow it.

Final Score: 2 (out of 8) This was such a garbage monologue. I'm totally surprised he came out with two points.

CCP: Let's Go 'Hang Out at the Track'

In one of his must insufferable rants, Colin today skewered Mets catcher Paul Lo Duca for what Cowherd assumes is a gross gambling problem. Yes, Lo Duca is in the process of a divorce, in which his wife has apparently submitted a petition to freeze some of their joint assets, presumably to avoid having Lo Duca blow the money at the horse track. "Hanging out at the track", according to Cowherd, is not the harmless good time it would imply, but is in fact the essence of moral decline in America. Admittedly speaking in "generalities", Colin proceeded to lecture his audience against those who "hang out at the track", equating them to the scourge of society, only one step above those who go to the dog track, and two steps above those who enjoy cockfighting.




Why am I getting picked on?





There are a bevy of flaws in this monologue, and we will detail three. Saying "I know I'm speaking in generalities here, but it's true" makes me want to stick a screwdriver in my temple. Webster's defines "generalizations" as "vague or inadequate statements". According to Cowherd then, vague and inadequate statements are true. Sigh....

Guys that "hang out at the track" are seedy individuals. Moises Alou and Michael Jordan must then be reprehensible people. Colin uses the example of Pete Rose and how "hanging out at the track" tainted his moral character. No, "hanging out at the track" was fine for Pete Rose, it was the whole "betting on baseball while playing and managing" that nailed him to the wall.

There's a big difference between guys who "hang out at the track" and those that bet on football and online. Really? Can you really generalize that? The contradictions to that statement are numerous, just ask this kid, or refer to the infamous Tocchet gambling ring, or note the rise in gambling addict hotline calls during March Madness. Note: No horses were harmed in bringing you these links. Now for the breakdown:

Was his topic/view informative?
Only if you're curious as to the happenings in Paul Lo Duca's personal life. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
Probably, but it was certainly none of our business. Unless we're "hanging out at the track". -1
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
No, and I'm sure he's not welcome to sit in on any Lo Duca marriage counseling sessions. -1
Did he use a fake voice?
12 minutes of the Pompous Ass voice. Does that count? -1
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
"Hanging out at the track". Upwards of 25 times. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
The entire argument was based on generalizations and assumptions. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
Gambling is fine, but "hanging out at the track" apparently is not. -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
I'm not sure what percentage of his audience "hangs out at the track", but you can rest assured that they were offended. I'll dock him. -1

Final Score: 0 (out of 8) Astounding. At this point, I long for the days of his Pistons and Steelers bashing. At least those topics were timely and relevant.

CCP: Man-up You Sally Bitch!

Colin threw sports to the wind today, and decided to talk about televisions for 12 agonizing minutes. Apparently the poor sap can't decide what new television to buy. Claiming he's an Average Joe just like the rest of us, he detailed his trip to the electronics store over the weekend, where he debated the plausibility of dropping upwards of $3,000 on a new HD or plasma idiot box. Ah, what a problem for the Average Joe to have. It sure makes "paying the bills" or "assuring the children have a college fund" look like cake. This subject really spoke to us all I'm sure.

Cowherd then rants on all of the extra warranty and surge protection garbage, etc. that the TV salesman tries to add on to your purchase. A solid 10 minutes of his monologue is dedicated to comparing a television purchase to that of an automobile. This I totally understand; last time I bought a TV, the dealer continued low-balling me on my trade-in. I ended up selling it just a shade below the Bluebook price in my yard to an old lady who was only going to use it for the local news and Wheel of Fortune. Man, did I work her over.

My point is, instead of complaining about how difficult it is to buy a new TV, grow a pair and take care of it like a man. Do a little research on the Internet. One hour should suffice. You could even spread that time out into three 20-minute increments and have a new television this week.

On to the analysis:

Was his topic/view informative?
No, it wasn't even sports-related. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
He harped on something that no one cared to hear on a Monday morning. I have no time for this. -1
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
No, he did not tell of the plight of the commissioned salesman. Even though I hate them too, I cannot in good conscience let this stand. -1
Did he use a fake voice?
Amazingly, no.
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
Yes, he kept comparing the warranty and surge protection to getting rust-coating on a new car. Just stop. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
Well, he assumed that all or most of his listeners have been through this process. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they haven't. Some of them can't relate, and some have their own problems to worry about, they don't want to hear yours. They tune you in for the news, not Consumer Reports. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
I can't tell if he ever took a stance on anything here, unless "buying a new TV is annoying" is a stance. -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
It's highly likely that a lot of people tuned him out today. -1

Final Score: 1 (out of 8) Good God man, cover a sports story tomorrow.

CCP: Veering Into Oncoming Traffic

Cowherd's rant today was so boring and generalized that I almost purposely wrapped my car around a telephone pole on the PCH. Of course, I had no open bottles of tequila or Jew hatred in my car, so my death would have been as pointless as Colin's monologue. Essentially, he argued that the Dodgers and Yankees are on fire since they made moves at the trade deadline, and the Angels and Red Sox are floundering as they did not. These are apparently logical conclusions to be drawn from a three game sample size. Anyway, the abbreviated analysis:

Was his topic/view informative?
Nope. Nothing we didn't already know. The Red Sox and Angels didn't make a big move at the deadline? What? You're kidding me. That was Tuesday's news. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
He didn't exactly tackle any new territory here. I'll dock him for un-originality. -1
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
He discussed both sides of the trade story, but he didn't look at the trades of recent memory that failed. -1
Did he use a fake voice?
Unfortunately, no.
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
Yes, that big teams make moves and "hot" prospects suck. His same old line we've heard a million times. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
Yeah, by looking at a three game sample size and drawing general conclusions that could very well be disproven in a week. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
I'm leaving the door open on this one. Like when the Red Sox win the division and he has to swallow his pride (I am not a Red Sox fan). -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
He certainly angered his Boston and Orange County listeners, but not brutally. I'll let this one go.

Final Score: 2 (out of 8) That's right about where we would expect him on any given day. If only he could have thrown in a crappy impersonation.

CCP: We Need to Quit Coddling These Guys

I'm gearing up for a doubleheader with Ron and Pat, where the Cubs will again showcase a rookie SP, this time Juan Mateo, fresh out of AA. That's Double A, not Alcoholics Anonymous. Anyway, I'll keep this brief.

Today Cowherd tackled the subject of NFL training camps, and how the intensity of practices in brutally hot weather is being lightened across the league. He proceeded to explain how these athletes are already at elite status in their profession, and are more motivated by rewards rather than by being "toughened up" in preparation for the season; the carrot on a stick rather than the whip if you will. Mark Cuban babies his players, and they respond. Tom Coughlin is tough on his players, Colin surmizes, and many of them don't like him for it. For the most part, I agreed with Colin in that times and motivations have changed between say 1968 and now. But isn't that obvious, especially in light of the Korey Stringer incident five years ago? Anyway, on to the breakdown:

Was his topic/view informative?
Not really. His stance was already pretty obvious, even to the casual sports fan. And he made sweeping generalizations. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
Well, he didn't really do any digging, but it was a slow news day. I won't dock him.
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
Well, the players might not like Tom Coughlin, but are his methods effective? Look at his track record: His Jacksonville teams made it to the AFC Championship game (but lost) in 1996 and 1999. 1995 was Jacksonville's first year in the league, and he was their first head coach. He turned them into strong Super Bowl contenders in one year. Sandwiched between those years were a Wild Card game appearance in 1997 and a
Divisional Championship game in 1998. He went to the NY Giants in 2004, and led them to a Wild Card game appearance the next year. I would say his methods work. -1
Did he use a fake voice?
Well, kind of. He made a half-hearted attempt at a Louie Anderson impersonation. I mean, Christ, Louie Anderson? Even if he was spot-on, he still needs to get docked. -1
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
His analogy was the carrot vs. the stick. Or something. It didn't drive me crazy though, so he survives unscathed.
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
Yes, heavy in assumptions. Bobby Knight might be rough on his players, but it undeniably worked in the '80's. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
Not that I could tell, but we'll be on the lookout for his eventual change in position.
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
No, the topic was pretty mild.

Final Score: 4 (out of 8). Mediocrity again reigns on the airwaves.

CCP: A Reprieve From Colin

Colin Cowherd was not to be found on your radio dial this morning. And the villagers rejoiced. It can only be assumed that Colin was a) flying back to the city/corporation of Bristol, Conn. from his venture to Wrigley Field, or b) he was massively hungover from said venture. Filling in for Colin on his show today was John Kincade, a radio personality from Atlanta, and a frequent contributor to The Herd's "Spanning the Globe" segment.

As I have nothing against John Kincade, I will not be rating the monologue today. I will, however, tell you that it made me cringe. John had decided to discuss the use of religion at sporting events, primarily baseball. His particular focus was on a recent "Faith Day" held at Turner Field in Atlanta, where after the afternoon game, fans had the option of purchasing a separate ticket to stay in the ballpark where John Smoltz led the fans in a small Christian faith rally. Obviously the discussion then evolved into questions of where we draw the line on the appropriateness of preaching Christian ideals to others, how we should treat all religions equally (a Muslim faith rally at Turner Field anyone?), and how these matters should be kept behind clubhouse and office doors, rather than targeting the Christian market. Basically, it's not the kind of light conversation you want to start out with on your way to a busy day at work.

Though this subject is not the ideal one to begin a day with, it is a valid topic to discuss. My main beef was how Kincade went about presenting it, where he beat around the bush for the first five minutes and how he intentionally yet sarcastically made it sound like he was going to preach his religious beliefs to the audience. He made his point, but I'm sure he lost a lot of listeners in the process. I'll cross my fingers for a less sobering monologue tomorrow.

Colin Cowherd Invades Wrigley

Before we start with our daily analysis, a quick unfortunate bit of news must be relayed. Apparently Colin Cowherd is going to attend the game at Wrigley tonight. Please throw things at him if you see him, as I will be unable to. To the left is a picture to refresh your memory.

This morning's monologue was somewhat enlightening, but flawed. Colin kicked it off by telling us that we should not make a big deal out of Chase Utley's hitting streak, or any other ballplayer that may in the future push for DiMaggio's record of 56 games. Though the 56 game mark is widely considered one of the most unbreakable record in all of sports, Colin proceeded to tell us how he didn't think it was that big of a deal, and would be broken soon. He then brough up a number of streak and records he considered more impressive, among them John Wooden's 88 game winning streak at UCLA, Ripken's consecutive games played mark, and Wilt Chamberlain's career rebound average.

Now, we all know that the National League is in a miserable funk compared to the American League. What really drove me nuts today was the extent of the NL/AL divide in the mind of Cowherd. He stated on two occasions that an NL batter could go 6 or 7 consecutive series without facing an "ace" pitcher, so an NL hitter like Utley would have a greater advantage over any random AL hitter. Well, we at TMS have some statistics that do not necessarily back up this claim. According to MLB.com, through July 31, the composite NL batting average was .266, while the AL average was .275. For the ERA in each league, the NL chimed in with 4.57, and the AL at 4.60. As you can see, these statistics between the two leagues are so miniscule, one cannot make a blanket statement that any given player from one league stands a better chance at breaking a record than any given player out of the other league. Regardless of league, if a player can put together another 56 game hitting streak, he is an absolute stud and has accomplished something that few have even sniffed in the sport. For the record, in the modern era, the second-best mark belongs to Pete Rose at 44 games.

Was his topic/view informative?
No, it was merely an outlying opinion with no substance. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
Well, at least he didn't harp on the lackluster trading deadline from Monday, so I won't dock him.
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
He did not research how incredibly difficult a 56 game streak would be, and made blanket statements about the difference between the NL and AL. -1
Did he use a fake voice?
Unfortunately, no, therefore I cannot take a point off.
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
I can't really say that he did, and he did bring up some other amazing streaks.
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
Yes, undeniably. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
Not that I could tell, although if anyone does break 56 games someday, he has no legs to stand on.
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
No, he just sounded dumb to any knowledgable baseball fan.

Final Score: 5 (out of 8), though the stupidity of his NL/AL statements is incalculable.

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

Before we get to the trading deadline news, another task is at hand. Today marks the first day in the odyssey known as The Colin Cowherd Project. Per my Friday post, the criterion have been set to analyze each of Mr. Cowherd's morning egocentric rants. Monday's proceedings played out as such:

The premise of his opening monologue was the Bobby Abreu trade to the Yankees, and how he felt he was in the minority, believing that the outfielder would not provide the adequate boost for a World Series victory. While most analysts across the country are gushing at Brian Cashman's latest acquisition, Colin argued that Abreu was past his prime, temperamental, was under-performing this season, and would only bring strife to the clubhouse. I must honestly say that I agreed with Colin's premise. He went on to explain how he's tired of the Yankees overpaying for aging veterans, and how the media sucks up each one and tells us that the Yankees are the perennial "team to beat". Bodies breaking down and the pressure of performing in New York have been the end result. Just look at Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, Jason Giambi, Kyle Farnsworth. Now, to the scoring...

Was his topic/view informative?
Informative in the sense that he took the opposite side of the story and made a logical argument, yes.
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
No, he rehashed the top story, but I won't dock him since he made a valid argument.
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
No, he kept repeating how bad the move was, and didn't necessarily say why the Yankees felt it was the best move to make. -1
Did he use a fake voice?
Yes, somehow he worked in a voice of a person in a broadway musical. I can't even explain this one. -1
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
He used a terrible analogy, comparing the Yankees moves to how alcohol is a truth serum. He lost me on that one, so while he didn't repeat it incessantly, I'm docking him for a terrible analogy. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
No exaggerations, just a good criticism of the Yankee moves in recent years.
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
Yes, this guy has railed on statistics in so many ways that he deserves to be bashed any time he mentions the word. So yes, in his criticism of the Abreu trade, he said something to the effect of "his career is on a decline, just look at the stats". This prompted me to laugh and spill coffee on my shirt. -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)
Probably not, although Yankee fans aren't going to be pleased with what he's said, and we unfortunately know their numbers.

Final Score: 4 (out of a possible 8) This was one of his best arguments I've heard in quite a while, but he still only scored a 4. Tough times ahead indeed.

Now to change the subject. For many of us, today is the 2nd most fabulous day of the year (the 1st of course being Christmas. Unless you're Mel Gibson. Then it goes Christmas, Easter, Epiphany, anything else Jesus-related, then MLB's trading deadline). The big deal so far, of course, was the Abreu trade. But what may be more beneficial to the Yankees in that deal was the inclusion of Cory Lidle. Adding Lidle greatly shores up the Yankee starting rotation, and allows Sidney Ponson to go back to Aruba and eat with no repercussions.

Among the other verified trades from Sunday and Monday: The Cardinals sent Hector Luna packing to Cleveland for Ronnie Beliard, completing a swap of mediocre infielders. The latest deal as of noon EST involved Sean Casey moving from the Pirates to the Tigers for a minor league pitcher. This promptly ends the disappointing reign of Chris Shelton in the Majors. After a thunderous April, Shelton has been broken and battered, and will look to right the ship at AAA.

Those players who are still awaiting word on their futures include Alfonso Soriano, Jason Schmidt, Greg Maddux, and Barry Zito, with surprise question marks around Roy Oswalt. Miguel Tejada is sure to stay put, while Julio Lugo is sure to be leaving Tampa Bay, probably heading to Boston. Be assured that there will more wheeling and dealing over the next four hours. We'll make a valiant attempt at bringing all the news to you live here at Thunder Matt.

The Colin Cowherd Project

Colin Cowherd is a schmuck. For anyone who lives in a city which carries Colin’s show on their local ESPN Radio affiliate, you are likely aware of the three hour bloc of dead air (four grueling hours on the west coast) that ESPN provides each weekday. The Herd, as the show calls itself, is an outlet by which Mr. Cowherd presses upon us his tunnel-vision view (the tunnel being that of football) of the daily state of sports in America. Sports radio listeners normally desire a roundup of the previous night’s athletic happenings, along with a preview of the day ahead while on their morning commute. A mixture of fun with a touch of controversy should also be tossed in with the main ingredients. Colin Cowherd may say that this concoction is his specialty, but he is sorely mistaken.


A Limerick in Honor of Colin
There once was a man named Colin
Whose radio show was appallin'
He ranted and raved
Attention he craved
His ratings are sure to be fallin'


From his perch in Bristol, Conn. (a throbbing sports metropolis as we all know), Colin Cowherd spews bullshit and condescension onto his listeners. His opening monologue that kicks of at 10:00 am EST, 7:00 am PST, is routinely an abomination of logic. Whether he is offending the majority of his own fans by blistering anyone who plays fantasy sports, or offering under-researched “headlines” like Mark Cuban having interest in buying the Cubs, Mr. Cowherd is an expert in double-standard and stupidity.

The anti-Cowherd groundswell is gaining momentum across the country. I don’t have statistics to prove this, but that’s OK. Cowherd clearly states that statistics are for “nerds”, as the guys at firejoemorgan.blogspot.com convey in an analysis of one of Cowherd’s monologues back in January (scroll about halfway down on the link).

For quite some time I’ve been itching to offer up a daily analysis of the Cowherd monologues for all to enjoy. I’ve devised a list of eight questions by which to rate the content of each opening monologue. They read as such:

Was his topic/view informative?

Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?

Did he give credence to the other side of his stance?

Did he use a fake voice, as if bad imitations are cool?

Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?

Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?

Did he contradict an earlier stance without conceding that he may have originally been wrong?

Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (presumably over 30%)?

The monologue score for each day will start at 8. For each of the above standards which prove detrimental to his argument, he will be docked one point. Therefore, his best score on any given day would be an 8 for a lucid, interesting argument, and the worst it could be is 0, implying that he pulled his argument out of his gaping anus. I would estimate that normal scores will reside in the 3-4 range, though on a dry run earlier this week, he scored a 2. A score of 0 will admittedly be rare, as to alienate your audience and blatantly contradicting yourself at the same time would be quite a feat. Nevertheless, these are crucial points.

The Colin Cowherd Project will begin on Monday, July 31, 2006. Good luck to you sir.

To read posts on how some others feel about
Mr. Cowherd, visit this page.

To view the results of the “Find a Picture of
Colin Cowherd Not Looking Like a Giant
Cockweasel Contest”, click here.

To read the Wikipedia entry for his show,
which includes a couple of his infamous
debacles, click here.

On a similar note, to read a running analysis on
the declining state of Bill Simmons articles, click here.




Colin also has a man-
crush on Jack Morris.
Here's Jack with a
nice walleye.