Idiocracy; Not so far fetched says Goodell

This week I was bored at a truck stop and decided to try out Amazon's DVD rental feature. I hadn't seen the movie "Idiocracy" in some time, so I decided to give it a whirl. I rented the movie and watched the full thing. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Now being on truck stop WiFi, I did have the occasional buffering, but nothing serious. Perhaps 4 or 5 times throughout the course of the movie for 5 to 10 seconds. Thus, I was surprised when I got the following email from Amazon stating that they were refunding my purchase (they don't usually do that) due to poor video playback (as if the crappy WiFi is their fault). Idiots. I didn't ask for it, why give it? I wish for the sake of Amazon that the idiots on Idiocracy were the dumbest people I had observed all week. And I wish for the sake of Roger Goodell and the NFL that Amazon had sealed the deal. But we'll get to him after this email from Amazon.

>Hello,

We noticed that you experienced poor video playback while watching the following rental(s) on Amazon Video On Demand:

Idiocracy

We're sorry for the inconvenience and have issued you a refund for the following amount(s):

$2.99

While Amazon Video On Demand transactions are typically not refundable, we are happy to make an exception in this case. This refund should be processed within the next 2 to 3 business days and will appear on your next billing statement for the same credit card used to purchase this item.


Please visit our troubleshooting page for tips on ways you can potentially improve your viewing experience: (link removed)


We hope to see you again soon.

Amazon Video On Demand Team

Note: this e-mail was sent from a notification-only e-mail address that cannot accept incoming e-mail. Please do not reply to this message.

Now, I shouldn't have to explain why it might be bad for business to convince a satisfied customer that they weren't happy, even though the unexpected refund was nice. You're just not really going to impress me that much with $2.99. Even had I felt totally hosed, I doubt I would have taken the time to express my displeasure over 3 bucks. So how could the NFL make this kind of dumb idea seem smart? Introducing Roger Goodell's idea for eliminating those dangerous kick returns.

So let’s get down to the actual structure of the idea that would replace kickoffs in an NFL game. To start off a game or after a scoring play, the receiving team would start at their own 30 yard line with a 4th and 15 situation in which they could choose to go for it or punt the ball away. If that team went for it and fell short of gaining 15 yards, the opposing team would gain possession with stellar field position. The proposal is vague enough not to specify whether the opposing team would be allowed to make a punt block attempt, which wouldn’t seem fair to me. It also fails to see that a punt return could be just as violent and dangerous as a kickoff return, since overgrown men running at full speed at each other is a recipe for serious injury no matter what way you slice it.

Recalling the scene (video blow) from Idiocracy where the idea of using water to hydrate plants instead of Brawndo (Sports Drink), replace the genius and idiots with myself and Goodell and have him try to explain this policy.

• Me: So instead of having a kickoff after a touchdown, you want to kick the ball off?
• Goodell: No, they would punt.
• Me: You mean like a kickoff?
• Goodell: No, I mean a punt. It's different.
• Me: Oh, so you want to stop kickers from stubbing their toe on the tee?
• Goodell: No, I want to stop high speed collisions on the return.
• Me: So it will be a punt with no return?
• Goodell: No, they will return it.
• Me: But the kicking team will not try to tackle the returner?
• Goodell: Yes, they will.
• Me: Won't there be a high speed collision when they attempt to tackle the guy?
• Goodell: Perhaps.
• Me: So how will this be any safer?
• Goodell: Because there won't be any kickoffs.

What a moron. I'm willing to say that you could make a case for a safer game if the kickoff was eliminated, but replacing it with a punt? Why? Because the kickoff is an essential part of the game. Goodell knows he can't take it out completely without changing the fundamentals of the game, so instead he wants to change it in a way that only effects the end of the field where the problems are not happening anyway. And while I'm not arguing that kickoffs are dangerous, imagine if Goodell were commissioner of other leagues where dangers abound in essential parts of the sport?

What sport (and I use that term loosely) is more dangerous than NASCAR? Wouldn't those cars be a lot safer if we took the wheels off of them? After all, they have deaths in their sport. Wouldn't removing the wheels end all deaths in NASCAR? Well, other than the deaths that occur when drunk rednecks argue over Jeff Gordon's sexual preferences, that is. But you get what I am saying.

Baseball has been having a problem with bats shattering and injuring people. The thought has arisen that they should switch to aluminum bats, but that would be a danger to the pitcher and the base line coaches and umpires as the ball comes off the metal bats at a higher velocity. But what if we removed the bat altogether? At the start of each inning, we could load the bases and put two outs and a 3-2 count on the scoreboard. The pitcher then either throws a strike and we switch sides, or he walks in a run. Wouldn't that be a lot safer?

And while we are fixing dangerous sports, I'll bet you're dying to know what I would do to hockey, right? Nothing. Hockey is it's own worst enemy. While Roger Goodell is busy trying to figure out what length the skirts should be for the players, there is only one way the NHL could possibly miss out on this golden opportunity to satisfy the blood thirst of those of us who miss football that predates yellow flags for dirty looks and fines for hitting "defenseless receivers." Of course, they are defenseless, they are on offense! As long as hockey players show up, they should hit the jackpot on this deal. Too bad they thought this would be a great year to go on strike. Plus, it's just a bunch of white guys anyway. Who cares what happens to them.

Hey, Roger! I have an idea. Maybe after every touchdown you could exit your luxury booth and go into a bathroom and change your outfit. Then the Referee could march both captains out onto the sidelines and and they could guess what color panties you are wearing, and the team that guesses correctly gets the ball at the twenty yard line. But what if they both guess wrong? What if one team guesses "pink" and the other "purple" but Goodell is actually wearing a nice magenta thong? Then the game is over right there, win lose or draw.

There is a reason why we pay these guys $20 million dollars a year. We do it because of the risks that they take. We aren't afraid that they will forget their name when they are 70, we assume they will. We pay them the big bucks because we know that when they are old they will forget what they ate for lunch long before they crap it into the bag that's stapled to their side. These guys are yesterdays gladiators, not tomorrows home decorators. If Roger Goodell had half the balls that Rosie O'Donnell does, he would tell these guys to suck it up and move along.

Let's face it. This attempt to "play it safe" and appease the fans simultaneously is about the dumbest idea I've ever seen a person in a position of authority put out there. It makes Biden's idea of spending your way out of debt look like pure genius.  You can't have it both ways, Roger. You can make the game safe, or you can make it interesting. One or the other. But you can't have it both ways. Either be a man, or just switch to full on flag football now before you drive the game to a death of a thousand cuts. Or in language you might understand, a thousand broken fingernails, you wuss.