Probably The Only One Who Cares

For the most part, I love the Internet. Before the world wide web most stupid arguments were never settled - people would stubbornly hold their positions until the other person either relented or left. It was simply a battle of wills and who was actually in the right was never a factor. But now people can pull out a phone, hit a few keys and tell you exactly which player won the Cy Young in 1993 without breaking a sweat. It has saved the world from countless drunken bar fights. However, what I don't like about the Internet is the new fad of allowing people to vote on just about every issue by clicking a few buttons, because I do not feel enough people think things through before they vote. The vast majority of people just hit a button and press send without carefully weighing all the factors. Now, before I go any further, I will acknowledge that I take all voting seriously and that is my issue. But I believe if you are going to have an opinion on something it should be an actual opinion you took the time to think through and not some kind of snap judgement you arrived at in two seconds.

The reason this has come up is that all afternoon Comedy Central has been airing the results of it's online "Stand-Up Showdown", which is supposed to count down the Top 20 comedians and the results are just irking me. As the specials count down, it is becoming clear that voters have not taken into account which comedians are actually funny and instead are just going along with who is the most active on Facebook. Admittedly, I watch a lot of stand-up specials and I feel rather informed on this issue and I don't feel rather informed very often, so I'm probably taking this more seriously than I should. I'm also willing to concede that these results probably bother me more than they will actual comedians. The thing is that while 98% of the population will never give these results a second thought, the 2% who will are producers and executives who will then end up giving unfunny people television deals based on their ability to get people to vote for them and not whether or not they actually make people laugh. People, this is how we end up with shows like Michael & Michael Have Issues. Think about that next time you assume your Internet vote doesn't matter.

-The new thing in sports broadcasting appears to be these subscription channels that bounce between every game going on without pausing for commercials. The latest one to pop up on my television guide is ESPN's Buzzer Beater, which covers college basketball. Now, I like it in theory, but I feel like someone needs to assume control over which games get shown. Sometimes it feels as though they are trying a little too hard to cover every game. This isn't like college football with only 120 D-1 schools - a lot more schools are playing major-level college basketball. They're not all worthy of a look-in, is all I'm trying to say. I'm sure that the alumni of these smaller schools want to know what is going on at their Alma Mater, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want you to cut away from the two Top-25 teams playing each other to make that dream come true. If they haven't made the Sweet Sixteen this decade and they aren't in danger of doing it again this year than perhaps we can keep them out of the rotation.