Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Wow, Someone Has An Ego...

Apparently Lindsay Lohan is suing E*Trade because one of the babies in their Super Bowl ad, referred to as a 'milkaholic,' was named Lindsay. She assumes that the baby was based on her and she wants $100 million. He lawyer says that if the baby was named Oprah or Madonna they would sue, so why shouldn't Lindsay? First off, Lindsay Lohan is neither Oprah nor Madonna. I'm willing to bet no one outside of Lindsay Lohan's mind ever made the connection. Secondly, way to shoot for the moon on the monetary number. I admire your lawyer's bat-shit crazy attempt, while assuming that he would 'generously' settle for 3% of that number. Third, saying a character is based on you just because they have the same first name is really a stretch. If that were the case then I would be rolling in some sweet Thomas The Tank Engine money right about now. Lastly, I wouldn't be so quick to jump and claim credit as being the inspiration for someone who is addicted to anything. It's not really something to be proud of. Then again, this was probably just a stunt to get her name in the papers for something other than being a crazy person, so I guess I fell for it. Kudos.

-Now, for the second time in a week, I'm gonna talk about women's college basketball. I do find UConn's 71-game (and counting) winning streak to be very impressive. After all, if it was easy then everyone would be doing it. But, the fact remains that the women's game is devoid of the same amount of quality teams you will find in the men's game. I could, right now, name 12 of the teams that will make the Ladies' Sweet 16 in 2013. There is just not the same level of competition. I mean, UConn broke it's own streak, one that was just set seven years ago. Which is why I think anyone who wants to compare this winning streak with the 88-game streak the UCLA Bruins put together in the 70s needs to sit this one out, Champ. Why don't you stop talking for a while?

-When the experts look back on the NFL offseason and try to sum up the lack of quality free-agents due to all the five-year players not being granted unrestricted free agency as a result of the lack of a salary cap, I get the feeling Leigh Bodden's contract will be front and center for their argument. Now, I like Bodden - I thought he did a nice job for the Patriots last year. But, just one year earlier he was a free agent and there was no great fervor to sign him, which was why the Patriots got him relatively cheap. All of a sudden he's worth 4 years and $22 million, $14 of which is guaranteed? That's a high price tag for a guy who couldn't stick with the Browns and the Lions and had never had more than 6 interceptions in a season. Clearly he fits Belichick's system, but he obviously benefited from being the second best corner in a very weak market.

No comments: