Before posing this week's great debate, here are a couple of house cleaning notes:
1) Just as a head's up, we are only a few weeks away from the 1 year anniversary of The WAD. It's hard to believe, but this thing all got started on October 5, 2005, the same day the Braves began their divisional series against the Astros. Unfortunately, I won't be writing about the Braves' playoff fate on the 1 year anniversary, but I would like to do something special, and I'm open for suggestions. So, if you have any ideas on how you would like to see us celebrate the 1 year mark or the weeks leading up to it, please pass them along.
2) Also, I'm scaling back my writing to at least 4 days a week, and in some cases, 3 days a week. Right now, I'm thinking I will problem do the Musings on Monday, the Great Debate on Wednesdays, and football picks on Fridays. For the time being, I'd like to do a new column that Huge suggested on Tuesday of each week, but I'm going to ask for a little help. What I need from you guys is for you to identify certain decisions or actions from the weekend in football (i.e. the Oregon replay officials crapping the bed) and send me questions you think should be asked of the people that committed those actions or made those decisions. In turn, I will offer up what I hope to be humorous, derisive, and entertaining responses. In other words, it will be the press conference we wish we could hear on Tuesday mornings. I'll give you an example:
Question (to the Oregon replay official): Despite the fact that everybody in America could easily tell that the onside kick didn't go 10 yards and the pass was tipped at the line of scrimmage, you failed to overturn either call. How can you explain that?
Answer: Listen, I'm sick of this crap. Put yourself in my shoes. On the one hand you've got fairness, equality, and the integrity of the game. On the other hand, you've got Phil Knight offering you bags of cash, shit loads of Nike stock options, and unlimited access to the VIP room at Crazy Horse in Vegas. Are you really going to tell me you wouldn't uphold those calls? Next question.
So, you get the point. Stuff like that. So, if you like the idea, send me questions this coming Sunday and Monday, and I will do my best to put together an entertaining column. And as for the fifth day of the week, Thursday, he doesn't know it yet, but I'm counting on Fite to work is internet linking magic.
Alright, now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's get on to The Great Debate:
As we've been heading into this week's Ryder Cup, one story that you keep hearing is that Tiger has a less than stellar Ryder Cup record (7-11). Then, this morning on ESPN.com, the cover story is a defense of Tiger's legacy despite this Ryder Cup record. So, this begs the question: Is Tiger's Ryder Cup record a blemish on his legacy, and must he turn it around this year, and in the years to come, to officially supplant Jack Nicklaus as the greatest golfer of all time, no matter how many Majors he wins?
Have at it boys.