All That and a Bag of Mail: TCU Sings "Call Me Maybe"
Published on: June 15, 2012 | Written by: Clay Travis
Okay, it's early, but you know what you need to really get revved up for Friday?
The TCU students charged with orienting incoming freshmen sing "Call Me Maybe"
Now the only real debate left is whether this is worse than Georgia's awful "Party in the UGa" video from two years ago.
I'm going to link both videos below.
In the meantime, congrats Big 12, you got this to replace Texas A&M.
If the student orientation meetings are all like this no wonder so many students turned to drugs.
Here goes with our anti-beaver pelt trader of the week:
Which is worse, this is or Party in the UGa?
At least Gary Patterson didn't have a cameo in TCU's "Call Me Maybe."
On to the mailbag.
Clay, what's Facebook etiquette on Facebook nudity that you think is unintentional? I'm shocked by the number of girls who end up with upskirt beav shots and nip slips on Facebook. But I don't want to be the perv who admits to magnifying these pictures to ensure that's a nipple or a beav. And what do you do if the pictures have been up for a couple of years?
This is a moral dilemma of the social media age.
The number of accidental nip slips and beav shots up on Facebook has to number in the millions.
I've seen four and I don't even spend much time on Facebook, two beavs and two nip slips.
So let's break this down: First, I don't understand how this happens.
The assumption has to be that no one is doing this intentionally. I.e., if you really wanted to share nudity with all your friends and family you wouldn't sneak a nipple or an upskirt beav shot unintentionally on to Facebook. Second, it's not surprising that this could happen, but what's amazing is how long the photos stay up. The longer they stay up, the less likely anyone is to say anything about it.
Third, is it possible that women don't look at the boobs and crotch as obsessively as men do? Like, perhaps women are more concerned with their smiles, what dress they're wearing, and how their hair looks. Whereas men just immediately go to the boobs and crotch?
I think this is true.
Fourth, are women not willing to zoom in on photos to be sure?
Seriously, guys will magnify pictures like 4 billion percent to see a nipple. Every single guy has done this.
It's like CSI: Nipple.
Everyone of y'all would be ashamed to know what we'll do to see a nipple.
You're reading this mailbag from a guy who used to pause the television and try to look down the screen when boobs were just barely cut off. (And chances are your husband or boyfriend did the same thing at some point).
I just don't understand how nipple and beav shots on Facebook happen so often:
So here are my hypotheses:
1. Lots of girls hate each other but pretend not to hate each other. So catty girls are tagging the girls they don't like in photos because those catty girls know that there's a nip slip or beav shot, but they can claim that they didn't know about it.
I reject this hypothesis because if the catty girl tagged you in a photo wouldn't the non-catty girl and her friends check that photo the most obsessively just to be safe?
And wouldn't you remove it immediately?
2. Girls are doing this to play a practical joke on each other.
Again, rejected because the pictures stay up and my underlying assumption remains that most women are not trying to show their nipples and beav on Facebook.
3. Guy are seeing nipples and beav where there aren't nipples and beav to be seen.
That's a shadow!
Sure it is.
Just keep telling yourself that Janet Jackson.
4. Girls don't look at boobs and beav in photos like guys do.
We don't miss this stuff.
This is my working hypothesis.
Most guys use Facebook to scan for bikini pictures or revealing outfits.
It's like we have a skin meter in our head. Show us 150 photos rapidly riffing by on Facebook and we're going to click on the one that shows the most skin. And then we're going to look at the boobs, and if it's a skirt, we're going to look for panties. Or the lack thereof.
I don't know why we do this, blame biology, but we all do this.
So, anyway, back to the question when should you tell?
There are four people you tell automatically no matter how old the photos are: your mom -- God forbid, any female relative, your wife -- God forbid part two, and your current girlfriend.
These are the only four absolute must tells no matter how old the photo is.
But after that it gets tricky.
Because the amount of time the photo has been up is a really delicate issue. For instance, you don't want to be the guy who writes this email or makes this phone call, "So I was scrolling through your spring break pictures from 2007 in Panama City -- (which is inevitably like 963 photos back) -- and I noticed that your vagina is exposed at Club La Vela. You really have to zoom in to be sure, but I'm pretty confident that's a vagina. I mean, not 100%, but it looks like the two of three vaginas I've seen before in my life."
Basically it's impossible not to seem creepy doing this.
So I think you have a month to get away with the inquiry.
After that you stay quiet.
Which, I think, explains why every single guy reading this right now is pretty sure he's seen a nipple or a beav shot on Facebook and kept quiet about it.
About fifty of y'all have emailed me this photo of a Tennessee fan robbing a bank with a toddler.
If you didn't click on the article, a UT fan in Knoxville robbed a bank Kroger while carrying a toddler.
It's an absolute failure of the Internet that I didn't hear about this until this week when y'all started sending me the link.
We may need to break this out in to a longer awkward fan photo piece, but I just wish it had happened more recently.
Because there's no way I miss it then.
My primary thought on this photo is simple, why wear the hoodie for the bank robbery and then not put the hoodie on?
My second thought is, I'm just glad it wasn't a UT football player.
My third thought is, why couldn't this have been Derek Dooley?
My fourth thought, are we sure this isn't an Alabama fan in disguise?
Ben D. writes:
Clay, I was following the USA-Guatamala World Cup qualifier this week and got to wondering. Is there anything in major American sports that compares to the USA having to play on the road at a 3rd world country, in 3rd world conditions? The best I could think of would be a SEC team playing a BCS playoff game on the road at a WAC school, but we all know college football executives wouldn't allow that anyway. So is there anything at all in American sports that compares? I don't think the average sports fan really understands how unique (or even absurd) World Cup qualifiers can be.
No, that's pretty crazy on a professional level.
No way it ever happens here because American wealth ensure that even our poorest people are rich by global standards.
From a global perspective there are no poor people in the United States.
The closest we could get would be like if NFL players suddenly played a pro game at the worst inner city football field you've ever seen. (Like my high school, Martin Luther King here in Nashville. We used to have soccer practice where we would walk around and pick up the biggest rocks on our field to throw them off to the side.)
Imagine if the Dallas Cowboys suddenly showed up at the worst inner city Dallas high school and played a game using their facilities.
Even better, what if the Cowboys had to train there for a week. Use that school's weight room, eat in the school cafeteria, and then play their game on the field.
Anyway, it's a good point, there's nothing like World Cup qualifying.
Toss in the corrupt officials who hate the United States and you've got a recipe for true disaster.
John B. writes:
Some of my favorite professional teams are those in small markets. I just feel like the fans are so much more appreciative and rabid in general. I know that you like to dive into TV ratings analysis--so here is my question: what small markets are poised to take either a moved or new franchise (in any sport) and make it wildly successful and popular similar to the Thunder in Oklahoma City?
Do you mean a place where it's loud?
I just feel so cheated that ESPN/ABC isn't telling us how loud it is during the Heat-Thunder games.
I mean, it's like they forget that our volume works.
I've actually spent a decent amount of time thinking about which cities that don't have pro sports should have pro sports.
The best source to use is this Wikipedia page that gives you the metro populations for the largest cities in the United States.
Here's my list:
1. Las Vegas
An absolute no-brainer.
This is the only city on the list that could support multiple teams. I think major league baseball, the NBA, the NHL, and the NFL could all work here.
Not at the same time, but at least two of them.
Can you imagine the NBA in this city? Or the NHL for that matter?
It would be wildly popular with locals and with visitors.
This is the only city on the list that really, truly needs a team.
2. Austin, Texas
It's really kind of amazing that Austin doesn't have a team.
I know the University of Texas is in the same town, but an NHL or NBA team would kill here.
The city is bigger than Indianapolis, which just hosted a Super Bowl and has two major league teams.
Austin should have at least one team.
Alabama people are crazy sports fans.
But all they have to cheer for right now is Alabama and Auburn.
The state really needs a pro team to dilute the crazy.
The only franchise that would work in the city is the NBA. (I think the NFL would work, but I also think that Alabama and Auburn would block it for fear that it would detract from college. Which it would.)
But I think if Birmingham got an NBA team it would do insanely well.
The only issue is whether or not there are enough corporate dollars to support a franchise. Because the fans would be all in for a team.
I have no idea what the fan support would be, but this city is big enough to support pro sports.
Plus, there's a decent amount of corporate money and it's in a relatively untapped region.
Surely, they could support one franchise.
If you put an NBA team in Louisville it would really, significantly, take a bite out of the UK-UL fan bases. Why? Because the sidewalk alums gravitate towards pro franchises.
Since well over 90% of the UK-UL fan bases have no degree from the schools, putting the NBA in Louisville would seriously detract from the college game.
Anyone who argues that pro sports don't detract from college fan bases is an idiot.
It matters a great deal.
So is pro sports worth it?
Ask Nashville residents whether they regret the Titans and the Predators coming to town because it may have hurt UT football.
The answer is not one bit.
The other sports would fail here: NHL, NFL, or baseball wouldn't draw well enough.
So it's NBA in the new arena or nothing.
I think that's about it in terms of cities without pro sports teams that could support pro sports.
You could argue for the Virginia Beach, Tidewater area, but there's no real central location.
Otherwise pro sports have pretty much colonized every city that's big enough to support pro sports.
Resident OKTC genius Karen Howell provides us with this LSU shirt:
"I'd rather take a shower at Penn State then support Alabama."
Fair or foul?
I mean aside from the then, than mix-up.
Which, as written, means you'd take a shower at Penn State then support Alabama.
A daily double?
I'm inclined to give college kids a pass on pretty much anything.
But if it makes me wince...
Personally, I'd hold the Alabama fire until after the Tigers beat the Crimson Tide on November 3rd of this year.
Then I'd print a shirt with the score on it.
Above the score, I'd write: "Teabag this,"
Everyone would love that.
Hell, I'd buy one.