USC Wuz Robbed!

Those points I agreed with. Which is why I didn't address them. Tiger was very good for golf, but on a grander scale, I think Michael Jordan takes it because he made basketball the cool thing to play/watch throughout the world. Tiger still has time to overtake him though.

If the Blackhawks are good, I'll watch. I won't hold my breath though.

How many commericals has Tiger been in? How many guest TV appearances has he made? How many newspaper and magazine covers has he been on? How many more people have taken up golf since Tiger became a house hold name? Rich entitled black kids? Go to any course on a Saturday and watch how many drunks are playing, or how many guys in t shirt and jeans? I'm not a white collar snob by any means, but Tiger's candour has taken the starch out of the proverbial stuffed shirt of golf from previous generations. The casual golf fan who tunes in when it's a major or Tiger's playing? That didn't exist 15 years ago. Every one in North American now knows who Tiger Woods is, and even a lot who are ignorant to golf also know who Singh or Els or Duval or Mickelson are. How many knew who Barkely or Ewing or Pippen were during Jordan's era? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Umm you're kidding, right? I know you like golf and all and I respect that, but I'm fairly certain a lot more people know who Charles Barkley and Scottie Pippen are moreso than Singh or Duval or Els. Mickelson maybe...

Of course the choose to take the risk of getting injured and having their bodies punished every Sunday. They also should be able to choose to get paid to do so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In which they are, by agreeing to a little thing called contract, where you know, if you sign it.... you get paid for playing. The players, once signed, should honor the contract til it gets to the point they're mistreated. TO and Walker ARE NOT mistreated.

They would have had a horrible match in 1998. It doesn't really matter. They know they aren't going to be putting on a ***** classic. The appeal is JUST in them being face to face before coming to blows.

I'd normally agree, but I'll reserve my judgment til it actually happen, which it 99.99% won't. Hogan and Austin recognizes the possible payday involved in a singles dream match between the two of them. Any suspicions they may have between each other would be offset by that mere fact. They wouldn't allow it to be changed to a meaningless tag match involving a guy that hates WWE and Hogan.

You know, EVEN if it was true, I don't see Warrior EVER agreeing to teaming up with Hogan.

If I recall correctly (considering I didn't see that game firsthand), the referee or something botched a call that pretty much spelled doom for the Giants. I think they get a pass here.

Yes, I am alternately known as The Californian. Since I live in San Diego currently, I do root for the Chargers but "rabid" is a bit of an overstatement. It goes like this: 1. Bears (Due to me being a native Chicagoan) 2. Raiders (The team I have always dug) 3. Chargers as of 2003 (3/4heartedly though, I only root for them because I work for them and live in the city they represent.)

I doubt it's true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. How would pissing Jim Hellwig....err excuse me, Warrior....cause him to want to come to WWE to take part in an angle?

Not sure where to post this but here's a question for ya guys: If money was no issue, and you had no other issues to settle and you could move ANYWHERE in the world, where would you like to move to? I'd like to move to Barbados, where my grandmother lives.

But it dosen't make sense to ban a character based on one bad angle/incident. Why not ban Torrie Wilson for the abortion of the Al Wilson angle? Then ban Triple H and Kane because of Katie Vick. The premise of Hassans gimmick isn't that he's a terrorist. If you isolate that one incident, theres no reason to worry. The best thing to do would to continue with the gimmick, downplay the terrorist angle as much as possible or come up with some logical explanation as to why Hassan went along with it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> *Sighs* The difference is in the reactions to it. The Al Wilson thing garnered ZERO attention. Ditto with the Katie Vick angle. There also wasn't an outbreak of necrophilia that would be "too close to home". There is terrorism going on right now. Hassan played to that aspect two weeks ago. They are now seeing the consequences for it. Now explain to me, just how do they backtrack with no TV? They tried to do that on their site, claiming Hassan isn't a terrorist. No one is buying it. Like I said, damage has been done. They need to cut their losses and move on.

It actually doesn't matter. Hassan could come out as a squeaky clean babyface and the networks would still want him off. RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT, there's a big backlash towards Mark Magnus and WWE concerning the Hassan gimmick. The damage has been done. The best thing to do is kill him off and take him off TV for a bit and repackage him.

Clearly Denver Broncos and Minnesota Vikings. They are in the dictionary under "chokers". Two years Vikings are considered the best team in the league (1998 and 2000) and both times they fail to reach the Super Bowl. I won't even get into Denver's history. I'll leave that for someone else, preferrably a Denver fan.

What bullshit. What possible ramifactions would there be if Spike TV or UPN for that matter, carried on with Hassan's character? Unless the WWE continued with the pseudo-terrorism aspect, there is no rational reason for this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They would edit his segments out and keep warning WWE. If WWE refuse to listen, they have full power to cancel the show, as far as the network is concerned. Don't be silly. There's MAJOR ramifications for not listening to the network.

Yes he was talking about the Rock.

I like Randy Orton also. Though I wouldn't go out of my way to go see him. I just wish the best for him.

How does one person being put in a casket set up a casket match with a different guy? The only way that could work is if Orton popped out of the casket and gave Taker a RKO, then they beat down Taker a short bit before he goes on his deadman comeback and buries Hassan for once and all.

Just so you know, Packers fans, I'm a Bears fan, so I could care less what the Packers do. I only speak in the theoretical sense. Owens won't report if Eagles doesn't acquiesce to his request. Walker has no leverage of any kind, outside employing NFL's most hated superagent. He doesn't have the precedence that would lead Green Bay to believe he could be a long term investment (For all we know he's a flash in pan that looks good because of who's slinging the passes his way).

But I'm sure none of their programming gets tons of negative mail/email over it.... well til Smackdown came along... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> At least it means people are watching it..which is more than they can usually say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If an angle offends viewers, can you say they'd return to the program next week or from that point on? UPN doesn't think so, clearly.

But I'm sure none of their programming gets tons of negative mail/email over it.... well til Smackdown came along...

Showing poker on ESPN is offensive! You're right, actually. I see your point.

They're likely caving in to the negative press and wanted the character to be pulled from the program before further damage could be done, because you JUST know it would get worse if Vince didn't have to pay the consequences for doing the things he does.

I'd do that as well, VX. I'd also try to find a replacement for Grady Jackson. He's too old to be pulling this shit.

He's showing WWE has a history of doing stupid shit like this Hassan angle. The article is showing that WWE never seems to learn from the previous stupid shit they do that turns off the fans by continuing to do it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree, but he should criticize ESPN first for botching things before looking externally at other companies.