A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.
Osweiler v. Brady. Tonight (1830 MST, NBC), the Denver Broncos, quarterbacked by Kalispell’s Brock Osweiler, take on the New England Patriots, quarterbacked by Tom Brady and down two of its elite receivers. Osweiler’s filling in for injured 39-year-old Peyton Manning, who probably never will play another game. He decided to play one season too many, not an uncommon mistake in professional sports. Brady is 38 and having a good season. Will he have the good sense to retire at the top of his game? Probably not.
Over the hill pugilist Wladimir Klitschko, a 39-year-old heavyweight, and holder of several championships, stepped into the ring Saturday against 27-year-old Tyson Fury, a six-foot-nine trash-talking Irishman. Giving up 12 years and three inches was too much for Klitschko, who stepped out of the ring an ex-champion. Klitschko speaks four languages, but if he doesn’t have the good sense to retire, he’ll end up slurring four languages.
Ka-ching! Love those concussion dollars. College football makes money for universities. That’s what a reader who didn’t like my post on Montana State University football tartly emailed me. Every time I criticize football, I receive unfriendly email from irate football fans. This time, however, I received an equal amount of email from readers who agreed with me. So, some progress.
But does football really make money for universities — and if it does, it that a justification for football? I’ve never found a reputable economic analysis of the true cost of football, so I suspect the answer is football is a net loser when all factors are considered. But even if football yields a net profit that gets invested in academics, it’s still tainted money, blood money, the product of a brutal game that wrecks knees and rattles brains. It’s morally wrong to finance education with concussion dollars.
One way streets in Kalispell. According to the InterLake, some residents along Third and Fourth Avenues East want to convert these one-way streets into two-way streets. Why escapes me, although I suppose it’s possible that someone wants to sell his house and was told by his real estate agent that living on a two-way street would increase his property’s value. Driving those streets a couple of days ago, I was reminded how narrow they are for two-way traffic. The one-way arrangement, a good solution for older residential areas with narrow streets, has worked well for decades. Leave it in place.