Florida QB Tim Tebow plays receiver before SEC Championship

This very interesting and just posted YouTube video features Florida Quarterback Tim Tebow playing receiver and some cornerback in a practice before Saturday's SEC Championship game against Alabama.



Is it possible we will see a trick play from the spread option involving a throw to Tim Tebow? Well, it's possible; take a look at this double pass play from The Spread:

It features the quarterback (QB) throwing to the running back  (R), who then throws back to the quarterback which has ran downfield to the left corner. 

It's going to be a great game, but I don't think Alabama will win because of the coaching skill of Urban Meyer. The conversation of the SEC Championship took up a good degree of time on the Football Reporters show Thursday night. Click here for the show.

Listen to the show on BlogTalkRadio Thursday nights at 6 PM PST, 9 PM EST.

George Clooney jokes on Tiger Woods scandal; Up In The AIr gets Oscar buzz

George Clooney, who's new movie Up In the Air is enjoying its first awards success of the Awards Season scoring four prizes at the National Board of Review Awards Thursday, cracked a joke about the Tiger Woods scandal at the Los Angeles premier of the flick Monday night. According to Fox News.com, Clooney said:

“I never get mad. But I do I get mad at Stan (Rosenfield, his long-time publicist) sometimes but what I do is hit him. I hit him with a golf club the other day…you heard about that?”

As Clooney was cracking on Woods, Up In The Air was moving, well, up in the level of Oscar buzz surrounding it. New York Magazine has the film as the Oscar Best Picture front runner as of this writing, and picks it ahead of Bright Star, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Invictus, Nine, Precious, A Serious Man, A Single Man, and Up.

But that's New York, which seems to have it in for Precious.

George Clooney in Up In The Air

What makes Up In The Air so appealing is its somewhat contemporary story. But why does Clooney's character have to be captured in promotional trailers sharing a racial stereotype? What's the point?  In a trailer, there's a segment where Clooney's character says that he gets behind Asians in the security line because they're efficient. Or...

Bingo. Asians. They pack light, travel efficiently, and have a thing for slip on shoes, god love ‘em.”


“That’s racist!”


“I’m like my mother. I stereotype – it’s faster.”

Here's the trailer:



Here I agree with Carmen Van Kerckhove from New Demographics and Racialicious blog, who wrote:

Cue eye roll at blatant “he’s so cool and un-PC” ploy.


Bonus points for making a “post racial” joke when there are no other people of color in the trailer. Not even as background extras.

I think the movie would have been just as effective without such crappy lines. I don't care if its the character, in 2009 we do have a choice not to present such attitudes, why not avoid doing so? I just don't get it and I'm sure I don't want to. I'm not alone in saying that America craves a truly contemporary movie; this isn't quite it.

But that written, Up In The Air's assent will be interesting to watch.

Stay tuned.

April Ryan v. Robert Gibbs - does Ryan hate White House' Desiree Rogers?

April Ryan, a reporter with American Urban Radio Networks, bumped the Tiger Woods scandal down Google Trends and for something I didn't think would reach the collective public media radar, an exchange with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs posted on YouTube by the conservative blog TownHall.com:



The issue that April Ryan's asking about is White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers' role in the State Dinner Partygate Scandal where Tareq and Michaele Salahi gained access to the exclusive affair without being on the White House' Official Guest List.

April Ryan of American Urban Networks

April Ryan was trying to ask Robert Gibbs why Desiree Rogers was at the dinner. Desiree Rogers is the White House Social Secretary who planned the event. But Ryan says that Washington gossip centers around the perception that Desiree Rogers is just working to advance her own interests.

What's of concern to me is Robert Gibbs' mistake of talking down to April Ryan - he should not have compared her to his kid - masks the real issue: what does April Ryan have against Desiree Rogers?

What's not reported at a number of conservative blogs is that this was the second straight day Ryan came to the White House press briefing and aggressively questioned Gibbs. I saw both exchanges on television and had the impression Ryan was fishing for information to write a "dirty" article about Desiree Rogers, who like Ryan is black.

Desiree Rogers

This exchange between Gibbs and Ryan is not important; what April Ryan wants to discover and then do with the information she gets is. Read this transcript (first posted at the DailyKos) from the first day of questions from April Ryan to Robert Gibbs:

QUESTION: Follow up. Normally in the past, before this administration came, there was always a checks and balances type of system at that gate with the Social Office, as well as the Secret Service --


MR. GIBBS: I think that's what Ed just asked.


QUESTION: That's what I'm saying. And you're saying --


MR. GIBBS: This is a follow-up or -- go ahead, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.


QUESTION: Again, there's always been a series of checks and balances. And if there was a concern from the Secret Service, they would always relay it back to -- it was a back and forth between the Social Office and the Secret Service.


MR. GIBBS: What I'm saying -- what I said to Ed was --


QUESTION: But let me finish, please --


MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, but let me -- I think the question was asked, so let me reiterate my answer. Again, April, none of that relay happened, right? None of that relay happened between the Secret Service and the Social Office, whether or not the Social Office was standing at the gate or whether or not somebody was sitting in their office at the White House.


QUESTION: If you would allow me to finish, you can understand what I'm saying. The relay did not happen because that person was omitted at the gate from the Social Office. The way we understand, that person --


MR. GIBBS: Omitted?


QUESTION: That person was fired earlier in the year. So --


MR. GIBBS: But again, April, you can ask it seven ways. The answer continues to be, the relay didn't happen because somebody was or wasn't there. The relay didn't happen because nobody picked up the phone to relay the information. I mean, I appreciate the observation that somebody could or could not have been at a certain gate. But again, you could pick up the phone, just like I can pick up my phone in the office and relay you, April. You don't have to be standing in my office for me to convey information to you. I think the --


QUESTION: So are you saying that the Social Office does not have any responsibility in this at all?


MR. GIBBS: April, there's an investigation that's ongoing into the actions of what happened, and I'm going to wait for that to be completed.


QUESTION: The reason why we are questioning the Social Office and the Secret Service is because in the past, both have worked in conjunction and successfully were able to protect the President of the United States without anyone coming in. And now because the Social Office did not have that other layer of checks and balances there, this happened. And people are questioning why this White House is not putting the onus some on the Social Office, as well.


MR. GIBBS: I'm going to let the investigation put the onus on where the onus should be. But what I'm simply doing is explaining to you a series of facts that include the notion that if somebody was confused about whether or not somebody was on a list at a guard tower on the exterior perimeter of the White House, and there was a question, generally somebody could pick up the phone and ask. I'm saying that -- I'm saying that the Secret Service, in the statement that they released a few days ago, acknowledged that that didn't happen and that that was a mistake.


QUESTION: The whole process has been changed at that gate from now on. Will the Social Office be working in conjunction with the Secret Service now?


MR. GIBBS: I think first and foremost we're going to go through this investigation, and I would refer you to the Secret Service about operations that might change at that gate.


QUESTION: And the last question. People were saying that the President was never in danger, and many people have said that is not true. They got in --


MR. GIBBS: Who's "many people"?


QUESTION: People here, Secret Service. These people met with the President. They shook the President's hand. Who's to say they did not have some kind of -- granted, they didn't -- but hypothetically, what if a person had walked in and could have done something to the President? The President -- do you --


MR. GIBBS: This hasn't happened before. (Laughter.) I appreciate the opportunity to indulge in a grand hypothetical.


QUESTION: Has the President remarked on this at all?


MR. GIBBS: Look, I think the President shares the concern that the director has for how this happened and how we can remedy it from happening again.


QUESTION: Is he concerned about his safety with this?


MR. GIBBS: No.


QUESTION: Have you heard him say anything, is he angry or is he as incredulous as the average American is that people could just walk right into the White House like this?


MR. GIBBS: I think the President -- look, the reason there's an investigation is the President and the White House has asked for that to happen. So I think suffice to say the President is rightly concerned about what happened last week.


QUESTION: Have you actually heard him say anything about it?


MR. GIBBS: I have not heard it, but it's been relayed to me.


QUESTION: Can you confirm whether or not charges will be filed against this couple?


MR. GIBBS: That is not a power bestowed on me as the press secretary. I know they've -- according to media reports, they've been interviewed by the Secret Service. I think that's a decision that would be made by the Secret Service and the United States Attorney in that area.

That reads like April Ryan's trying to do a media hit on Desiree Rogers. The Gibbs / Ryan "talks" are not Gibbs being disrespectful to a black woman, Ryan. They are Gibbs trying to defend Desiree Rogers from April Ryan's silly attacks.

April Ryan's questions have nothing to do with Tareq and Michaele Salahi at all. It's about Desiree Rogers' style. First, the real question is what did the Secret Service ask the Salahis at the check in desk? Second, who did the Salahis' know that helped them get into the event? Focusing on what fashion show Desiree Rogers attended in New York City has zero to do with the issue of the State Dinner.

In my view, April Ryan is being what we in the African American professional community call a "crabbarel": a black person who wants to take down another black person because the target has reached some level of fame. Mentioning that Desiree Rogers is at fashion shows and other events is not the point and calls her real intent into question. Desiree Rogers style and looks may be April Ryan's issue, but Ryan needs to get over it.

Tiger Woods scandal update - pictures, Jamie Grubbs, Rachel Uchitel

Just when I thought this was no longer a Google Trend, it's back hotter than ever, and as of this writing listed "Volcanic". The latest Tiger Woods scandal update has news about mistress Rachel Uchitel and the assumed payoff from Woods, one publications' need to dig into the past of the other mistress, Jamie Grubbs, and new pictures.

First, TMZ reports that Tiger Woods never paid off Rachel Uchitel to stop the press conference that was scheduled to be held Thursday. The news counters RadarOnline.com's assertion that Woods did pay Uchitel.

Rachel Uchitel

Uchitel reportedly called the press conference off Wednesday, after a long talk with Woods and his people because of her concern for her safety. Apparently she knows "too much" about Woods with other women and other personal details such that a news conference would have at the very least started a massive public PR battle between Rachel and Tiger.

TMZ's sources explain that Rachel's not afraid of Tiger Woods, but is concerned about how other people not named would be impacted by what she said. So Rachel's just going to go into hiding for a while. Let's hope her personal safety is maintained. Having something negative happen to her after that disclosure would only reopen the scandal as a criminal investigation and that would be massively bad for Tiger Woods.

Massively bad is the sudden negative press Woods other girlfriend Jamie Grubbs is getting today. CBS News.com has a new set of pictures and information about Jamie Grubbs "criminal record" posted on its Crimeinsider website.

Why "Crimeinsider"? Because EOnline reports Grubbs was arrested for shoplifting a coat in 2004 and a credit card balance EOnline says she didn't pay (which is dangerous territory to wade into because such issues are generally resolved). It seems to me that EOnline think's it's ok to defame Jamie Grubbs character and I'm guessing the reason is that some PR effort has been launched to attack her.

For example, RadarOnline reports that Grubbs recently worked in a medical marijuana "pharmacy." Reporting that is also wrong-headed because the next question is did Tiger take a medicinal toke?

Why all the negative press about Grubbs?

Because unlike Rachel Uchitel and Kamile Moquin who didn't talk about their Woods encounters, Jamie Grubbs was rumored to have received $150,000 by US Weekly to talk about her affair and turn over the now infamous voicemail recording of Tiger Woods asking her to take her name off her phone.

Jamie Grubbs' action torpedoed Tiger Woods' public image in a way that the Thanksgiving night accident had not. But, in a day when millions of people, including me and Paris Hilton, have DUIs, I'm not sure what good dishing on her so-called "record" will do and it could open EOnline and RadarOnline to a lawsuit from Jamie Grubbs.

Yikes.

If you're looking for revealing photos of Jamie Grubbs and visit the site with that objective, you're going to get punked because there's nothing special or revealing about them. But if you have to go there to see for yourself, click here, then come back here.

Reports: Woods offered $80 million prenup to Elin

Meanwhile, reports are surfacing, starting with New York Magazine, that Tiger Woods offered his wife Elin Nordegren an $80 million revised prenuptial agreement. Finally, in what would certainly be a show with ratings to blow away those gained when she had Sarah Palin as a guest, Oprah Winfrey's reaching out to Tiger to come and talk.

Stay tuned.  As I said in a vlog, this story will last for another week.  

Did Stanford Coach Jim Harbaugh use the F-word?

That Stanford Cardinal Football Coach Jim Harbaugh would be one of YouTube's first results in its brand-new "Trending Topics" feature was interesting to me. So I started searching on YouTube, found nothing, then checked Google News and saw a brewing controversy.

Jim Harbaugh

Some claim Jim Harbaugh used the F-word, and I'm not talking about the word that refers to sex. The other one that has to do with sexual orientation.

Allegedly Harbaugh yelled some choice words at game officials during the Stanford - Notre Dame contest that the Cardinal won 45 to 38. Now it's common for coaches to lose it and yell something at an official - it's expected in our culture. So from that perspective Harbaugh's rant was standard issue.

But the assertion is Harbaugh did more than just rant, where a coach complains about a call, but he called a name to an official, the F-word. It's something, this issue, that's been hidden from wide view. From reading the dates of the posts about this controversy, its been around for almost two days but only gay-oriented sites have covered it, even though it's on Google News under "jim harbaugh." Until now, no mainstream media site or straight-person's blog picked up the story, so I figured this straight-guy who has a blog and blogs at mainstream media sites would put it out there.

Ok, house cleaning out of the way, what proof is there that Harbaugh got off such a blast? Well, if you discount the self-proclaimed lip-reading bloggers, none, and here I'm wading into dangerous territory because the feelings on this are rightly powerful. Any slur is a bad one, but one must make sure there are several sources that can claim what the blogger asserts, as I had in the LeGarrett Blount issue.

I think Towleroad blog went too far in making an assertion that Harbaugh made the statement and basing that blog post on a video of the coach yelling without the sound.

But the problem that gives fuel to the issue is the video itself was just made private by its maker! So we can't see the video a second time. That in itself is really suspicious and now adds smoke to this story. The video should have remained available.

For Harbaugh, he asserts he did not use the term. Outsports reports that Harbaugh said:

It did not come out of my mouth. It would not come out of my mouth. It’s not in my heart to ever say that.

That's enough for me here. We have coach Harbaugh who says he didn't say it, and a video that really doesn't prove he said it.

The person who started all of this was a guy named Chris Finley who made the video and guessed at what was said. That was enough to cause a small controversy.

Time out. It seems to me some people are just knee-jerk ready to find fault with others and so much so that they will make up a story without hard evidence. That's got to stop. From my experience Coach Harbaugh's a good man who would not have a negative thought about someone based on race or sexual orientation.

Jim Harbaugh's only problem in the eyes of this Cal Alum is that he coaches the Stanford Cardinal Football Team.

Oregon v. Oregon State today; Cal v. Stanford in 2010

Congratulations to the Pac-10 Champion Oregon Ducks, who won a trip to the 2010 Rose Bowl after defeating Oregon State, 37 to 33 in their "Civil War" played Thursday night.

Oregon came back from a shocking season-opening loss to Boise State and the LeGarrett Blount name-calling incident to hammer Cal and USC before running into a Stanford Cardinal team that seemed Rose Bowl-bound until it was stopped by the sturdy Golden Bear.

That the Oregon / Oregon State rivalry ended in a fitting contest for all the marbles means that in 2010 The Cal / Stanford Big Game's next. And of course Cal will march to the Rose Bowl.

But until that happens, we have to look at videos of the Oregon v. Oregon State game and watch Oregon fans and students storm their field.