#065 - My Father's Day

"And I just tell people, 'Well, Bob's his best friend.'" -- my mom, about my relationship with my dad, some number of years ago.

I can't really deny that claim. And I have no desire to, either. And it's not for the reason of wanting to be particularly sentimental or cheesy, not to appeal to some unidentified subset of readers who will admire me more if I say that I love my dad. And it's also not because I didn't have friends when I was 12 years old. I had plenty of friends. I'm sure I had more friends then than I do now, and they were great friends. But while the quote above captures a moment in my life that has passed, the emotion associated with has not.

I am quite blessed. I have never looked at anyone else's parents and thought to myself, "Darn, I wish I had that." And even if I did, I can assure you, it was a fleeting thought and at the time I was likely angry and stupid. The motto of the classical American parent is, "Give my children something better than I had." I was lucky enough to have parents who embraced that concept. I wanted plenty of things (I was a kid in the 90s) but I was never in need. And while I'm sure at the time I was heavily focused on material possessions, I know now that the most valuable gift I received as a kid was time. My parents loved me, and they loved my sisters, and I'm not embarrassed to admit it now just as they weren't embarrassed to show it then.

My parents are no longer together, and they haven't been for ten years, but I don't consider that to be any sort of misfortune to me. Rather, I was fortunate enough to have two sane, capable, caring parents who wanted to be a part of my life and wanted me to be happy. When they went separate ways, all I wanted for them was to be happy. And I think that they've found it. I couldn't be happier for them. I'm well aware that writing a piece dedicated to my dad might come off as being ignorant towards my mother, but I certainly hope that's not the case. She's an incredibly important part of my life and I would never go back and change a thing about her. I was proud to walk her down the aisle recently when she was re-married, just as I hope she was proud to have me by her side.

I just feel that, in evaluating my life, I don't give enough credit to the influence that my dad has had over me. I firmly believe that people have the ability to choose what they ultimately want in life--that coming from a rough childhood, while certainly difficult, does not necessarily resign you to having a rough adulthood. That having conservative parents doesn't necessarily mean that you will (or won't) be conservative yourself. I know that it's not my dad's fault or his lone doing that I am who I am now, but as I grew older and became more aware of how I was affecting those around me, I'm very thankful that I had a wonderful example in front of me to work off of.

When I was a kid, I had two dominant areas of recreation: my bedroom with my ninja turtles, and my back yard. I'm something of a universal sports fan and won't immediately reject any game. I played soccer, baseball, basketball, tennis, enjoyed throwing the football around (though never strapped on a helmet), and riding bikes. The one constant throughout all of this? My dad. He was my teammate, my coach, my competitor. He never steered me away from anything or pushed me towards anything else. If I wanted to play a sport, that was great. If I didn't want to, that was great also. People look at my height and might think, "Wow, you're so tall, how come your parents didn't get you into basketball?" It's not like it wasn't an option; the bottom line is, and my dad will tell you this, at the time I just wasn't that into it. I loved shooting in the driveway, but that was the extent of it. Soccer was more fun for me. Baseball was more fun for me. And no matter how many times he had to drive me to the field and pitch me batting practice, no matter how many gloves I lost, no matter how much I beat the crap out of our siding playing wiffle ball, no matter how many times I kicked a soccer ball straight at his brand new prescription sunglasses, he never turned me down. He's a pretty athletic guy himself, and always has been, but playing sports with kids doesn't require just athletic ability. The primary requirement is patience. I was fickle and easily frustrated. I wanted to be good by just walking out there and being good, and when it didn't work out, I'd get pissy. I didn't really have that extra work ethic. But rather than stand there and berate me about what it takes to be a champion, my dad just gave it to me straight: "Hey, if you want to be better, you're going to have to work. And if you want me to help you, I will." How awesome is that? Trust me, a lot of times when I was frustrated, my first answer was, "No, I DON'T want you to help me." And sure enough, two days later, I'd peek my head into the office, "So, you want to toss me some BP?" I never apologized to him for being a brat about it, which is certainly something I regret now, but he never left me hanging. It's just not in him.

It wasn't just that he looked out for me in all of this. My dad was almost always involved. Soccer coach? Baseball coach? Almost every year, whether it be head coach or helping out. And he didn't just do it so that he could get me playing time. He was fair about it. And incredibly encouraging for the other kids. He was definitely not the guy you'd see chewing kids out on the sidelines. Never. I think he had a great sense of perspective when it came to that. When you're 10, 11, 12 years old, you want to feel good about the things you're doing right. He would always do that. Even for the kids who were struggling. And it wasn't just to save face in front of other parents. Sure, he had to deal with so-and-so's dad complaining about his son's playing time. It's the downside of the job--you know, the unpaid job he's volunteering his free time for. He just liked to be a part of it. He didn't care if kids were slow or uncoordinated. It was a very common thing for me to hear on the way home: "Man, that kid is always out of position and is going to give me a heart attack one day," he'd say, running his hand through his hair and shaking his head, "but I love that kid. He's a little fireball, isn't he?" Nobody likes to lose, but even more than that, I think the last thing my dad would have wanted is to be coaching a team of jerks. Don't be dirty. Don't be a dick. It's something that I carry with me today. We're out here to have fun, to enjoy the game. Nobody's getting paid.

Alongside of this, my dad was a big contributor in Scouting. I was a Boy Scout throughout middle school and high school, even though it was something I viewed as uncool and didn't want to admit it to people. But the experiences I had in it, I wouldn't replace. And more often than not, my dad was a factor in that. When I started out with the troop I was in, he would come along and help out as needed. After a couple of years, he took over as scoutmaster, lovingly called "Koach" by my friends. And he devoted himself to it. Even with all of the other things he was doing--taking care of the house, preparing for his three children to go to college, doing numerous bike rides, regularly giving blood, helping out his parents at the drop of a hat, attending all of my and my sisters' activities--he put forth a ton of time dedicated to Scouting. It's not just showing up to the meetings and going on trips. Planning the trips, board meetings, leadership meetings, e-mails, phone calls, district council meetings, fundraising, the list goes on and on. But the most important thing he did throughout all of it was to get to know the kids. And this might be a recurring theme, but, especially the ones who were struggling. I was a teenager then, I knew what it was like to look at other kids and think they were weird and not want to talk to them. But my dad didn't believe in that. Sure, he knew just as well as I did that some kids were just assholes and wanted to be a pain. But the kids who were a little bit awkward, a little bit slow, the ones who not many other people paid attention to, those were the kids he gave the most encouragement to. I feel ashamed of myself now for not appreciating that more. But in a lot of ways I think that comes out in how I view people today. I'm not saying I'm a saint and I know for sure I don't have the patience that he does, but I do think that everyone needs at least a chance. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's a character trait that I admire in him.

He gave and gave and gave to that organization, long after he stepped down, long after I left and moved on, and I think that's symbolic of his attitude in general. They thanked him in a number of ways, but I'm not sure that there's enough thanks around for what he did. And that's okay with him. I think he appreciates being thanked, just as anyone would, but I know that he looks back on his time with scouting and he looks at the kids who came through the program under him, and knowing that they succeeded is the one thing he really wants out of it. That's wonderful. And that's selfless. He does a lot of things for others--much more so than I could ever conceive of doing--and often times without batting an eyelash. I'm pretty sure that my sister would agree that he's been quite indispensable in helping her with her first home. And my grandfather might be buried in an overgrown jungle if it wasn't for my dad always checking in on him. And I'd probably be stuck on the side of the road in the middle of the night, as I have been a few times, helpless and hopeless if it wasn't for him. He's generous more than anything. But he's also funny, has a sense of humor about himself, and appreciates a good time. He's incredibly respectful towards women, which is a trait that I can't thank him enough for teaching me. And he's a smart dude. In fact, if you're reading this and know of a position available for a trustworthy guy with decades of experience in engineering sales, let me know, as I couldn't think of a person more qualified or worthy of a job opportunity.

Just this past summer, a close friend of mine who was part of scouting with me, and whose opinion I greatly respect, told me something that made me kind of emotional. He basically told me that, even though his dad is a great guy and has always been there for him, he thought he always viewed my dad as a secondary father figure. Not a replacement, just someone else he could look up to and respect in the same way. It was kind of mind-blowing to me, not that it surprised me, but it was just kind of touching. That someone who had a great pair of parents himself could turn to me and tell me how much he appreciated everything that my dad did for him was just a sign to me that I don't think I give him enough credit for what he does. I may not see him every day or every week like I used to, and I know for sure I don't answer his messages as frequently as he would like me to (I'm still a work in progress), but he's still the most important part of who I am as a person. He's still the first person I call when I do something I'm excited about, or I'm nervous about, or if I need directions no matter where I am (seriously, he's a human GPS). He's the strongest man I know, even if he isn't the world's most stereotypical "manly man tough guy". But I'm okay with that. I like how I turned out. And maybe if it had been different, I wouldn't have been able to take this time to tell him how much I love him.

Happy Birthday, Dad. I'm glad to have you as my best friend.

#064 - Singin' the Bronco Blues

Let's cut to the chase: I'm a fan of the Boise State football team. And like many of their fans nationally, I can pinpoint the moment I became one as the Fiesta Bowl game against Oklahoma in 2007. Already an undefeated team NOT playing for the national championship, Boise was a significant underdog against the perennial power Sooners, thus cementing the "people think we're frauds" stigma. They proceeded to work the Sooners, using their undersized players to execute their exciting offense to a T. Then, of course, the Sooners stormed back late and everyone turned to look at the clock on Cinderella. Only, they weren't done. And the last 2 minutes of regulation and the overtime session were the most exciting minutes of college football I had seen. 3 touchdowns in regulation (including what appeared to be a back breaking pick six for Oklahoma), and 2 more in the 2 overtime drives. The Broncos pulled out all the stops. Hook n Ladders, Statue of Liberty, marriage proposals... it was a thing of beauty.

Only it seems people have been constantly debating their legitimacy ever since.

Look, I'll be the first to tell you, they didn't deserve to be in the national championship game last season. Why? Because they lost. It's that simple. Oregon and Auburn were undefeated. It was an easy decision. Do I think Boise would have given those teams a run for their money on any field at any point? Yes. But, they lost. There's no debate anymore. Now, do I find it ridiculous that critics are pointing at their loss to Nevada as a reason why they are no longer deserving of being in the discussion? Yes. It's absolutely insane. Nevada was a hell of a team last year. 13-1 (with their only loss coming in Hawaii, consistently a difficult game for them) with wins over Cal, BYU, and Boston College. Sure, not the greatest teams. But high profile. Their offense was chock full of seniors jacked up to play in the biggest game of their lives, including stud quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who was drafted in the second round this year (you know, like well ahead of Alabama's QB or Ohio State's QB). Nevada played a great second half to come back from a big deficit and, unfortunately, all time Boise great Kyle Brotzman missed two gimme field goals in the waning minutes that sealed (but were not the sole causes for) the defeat.

They lost a game. It happens. Just not very often. In their last 41 games, Boise State has lost precisely 2 times. And dating back to 2006, the same year it eventually beat Oklahoma in the BCS, Boise is 62-5. That's an insane record. And critics will argue it's easy to do when your schedule is chock full of creampuffs (oh, is that so, Michigan?), but at the very least, Boise hasn't in that stretch lost to a team that wasn't damned good on its own. Let's take a look at the notable games, including listing all the power conference teams that weren't too scared to play them.

2011 (1-0 so far):

Game 1: Opened at Georgia (SEC). Whoops, I mean, VERSUS Georgia on a neutral field (that just happened to be in Atlanta, GA, you know, equidistant from Athens, GA and Idaho). Georgia was ranked #19. Boise was ranked #5. Boise worked them. Like, badly. They rebounded from a 80 yard touchdown run by a Georgia cornerback and took a 28-7 lead. It was over. They won 35-21. After the game, Kellen Moore said he was confused at why so many people were there to watch him play in 7-on-7 drills. It remains to be seen how good Georgia will be the rest of the year, but just remember how everyone was talking about how good Georgia QB Aaron Murray is going into this game.

2010 (12-1):

Game 1: Opened at Virginia Tech (ACC). Whoops, I mean, VERSUS Virginia Tech on a neutral field (that just happened to be in Washington, DC/Landover, MD, you know, equidistant from Virginia and Idaho). Va Tech was ranked #6. Boise was ranked #5. Boise won 33-30, including an icy cold touchdown drive by Moore in the last two minutes. The next week, Va Tech pooped the bed against James Madison and completely deflated Boise's sails. But what could they do? They scheduled a team that everyone thought was going to be awesome. It's not their fault VT had another game in only 5 days. VT stepped it up from there on, winning every remaining game and taking the ACC Championship and invitation to the BCS. So not only did they lose to Boise, but they lost to an FCS school and STILL made it to the BCS instead of the Broncos.

Game 3: Home vs Oregon State (PAC-10). They're common opponents, and unfortunately for Oregon State, Boise is the common victor. Like in this game, 37-24. Oregon State was largely unimpressive for the rest of the season, but they did beat Arizona and smoked USC.

Game 11: At Nevada (WAC). I covered this game above. Nevada was ranked #19 at the time, Boise #3. Nevada won, 34-31 in OT.

Bowl: In Las Vegas against Utah (MWC, now PAC-12). They smoked Utah, a team that was 10-2 at the time and opened the season with a victory over Pittsburgh. Utah was ranked #19. Utah was previously one of the teams that was always in the discussion for mid-major football, having gone undefeated in 2008 (including a win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl). They've had a few losses each of the past two seasons though, so, this win gets less credit from onlookers. Note that Boise doesn't get matched up with a BCS conference opponent in this game, despite an 11-1 record and #10 ranking.

2009 (14-0):

Game 1: Opened at home vs Oregon (PAC-10). Oregon was ranked #14 in the country, Boise was #16. Despite being a traditionally offensive team, Boise showed defensive prowess in this game, winning 19-8 and holding LeGarrette Blount, at the time considered one of the better running backs in football, to -5 yards rushing. He was infamously suspended after the game for punching a Boise player, and then disappeared until halfway through last season, when he emerged as a threat on the Buccaneers' offense. The Ducks finished 10-3 including wins over USC, California, Purdue, Utah, and Oregon State. They scored over 30 points in all but 2 of their remaining games, never lower than 17.

Bowl: In Phoenix against TCU (MWC, soon Big East). TCU was ranked #3, Boise was ranked #6. Again, the BCS didn't match either team against BCS conference schools, instead pairing them up with each other. Boise got the better of TCU in a very defensive game, 17-10. TCU had an impressive season up to that point, with wins over Virginia, Utah, and BYU and an undefeated 12-0 record. But they clashed in a rematch of the previous year's bowl game, and Boise won. Boise finished the season undefeated at 14-0.

2008 (12-1):

Game 3: At Oregon (PAC-10). Oregon was ranked #12 at the time, but Boise jumped on them 37-13 before a bit of a comeback in the 4th by the Ducks. Final score: 37-32. Oregon went on to finish the year 10-3, only losing to USC and Cal otherwise, and defeated #13 Oklahoma State in the Holiday Bowl.

Bowl: In San Diego against TCU (MWC, soon Big East). TCU was ranked #11 at the time, Boise was #9. TCU was 10-2, having lost at #2 Oklahoma and at #10 Utah that year, with wins over Stanford and #8 BYU. TCU ended up getting the better of Boise in a defensive battle, 17-16. This was the second in a series of four straight bowl games for Boise against mid-major competition after their victory against Oklahoma.

---

Will they ever get a shot at the championship? Who knows. It would require the right amount of things to fall into place, first being that they finish the regular season undefeated. Unlike a Florida or Alabama, they will never have enough prestige wins to overcome a 1 in the loss column. If they don't win them all, they only have themselves to blame. But these are consistent efforts over multiple seasons. Not just a fluke one season run with a lot of seniors and then a return to mediocrity. The program is one of the best. Whether or not they punch their own ticket to the BCS Championship, I'm just tired of hearing that they don't deserve to be in the conversation.

#063 - 2011 NFL Season Futures

In anticipation of the 2011 NFL season--which for various reasons has become one of the MOST anticipated seasons I can remember, at least for me--I have naturally been browsing the posted Team Props for season-long bets. And, naturally, I wasted no time making some moves on them.

Here's what I've gone with, so far.

CIN BENGALS U 5.5 (-125) -- 50 units. It is not only my estimation, but many others' estimations, that the Bengals are poised to be the worst team in football this year. Their quarterback situation is a huge question mark, Cedric Benson is tumbling down the other side of the hill, they let Johnathan Joseph leave in free agency, and it's becoming a possibility that the players will simply quit on the franchise (based on the feelings of Ochocinco and Palmer). WITH those guys last year, they won 4 games, albeit against a pretty brutal schedule. But I just don't think they did anything to get better. I like Bruce Gradkowski (yeah, you can laugh at me if you want) but that doesn't mean I think he's a good fit for this team, especially not when you consider he's coming in without the benefit of minicamp and offseason workouts. And the other option, Andy Dalton, is a smooth operator who is a timing/precision guy. He's going to take a licking before he gets his feet under him. They have winNABLE games, but does that mean they're going to come through? In my mind, no. But there have been bigger surprises.

DET LIONS U 7.5 (+115) -- 25 units. It's mostly a contrarian play. Everyone is so high on the Lions right now. And yeah, they've got Megatron and they've got Suh and a pretty sick defensive line. But they were 2-10 last year before putting it together down the stretch (wins over Packers with concussed Rodgers and the Dolphins and Vikings mid-disintegration). What's the ceiling on this team? 10-6? Is that really possible? I think people in Detroit would consider this year a win if Stafford and Megatron stayed healthy and the team got to 8-8. But that's the worst they could do to still cover 7.5 wins. If they're going to pay me to take the under, I'll take it. And hope they finish 7-9.

PIT STEELERS U 10.5 (EVEN) -- 25 units. We've been here before, I know. And after watching the Steelers dismantle the Eagles in the preseason, I'm not sure I feel very confident with this. But 11-5 is a damned good season. Can they do it? Yes. Can they do it against this schedule, which now that I'm really examining it, is remarkably easy? Yes. Am I feeling like a fool for betting this? Yeah, a little. Let's move on.

GB PACKERS O 11.5 (+115) -- 25 units. I think they're the best team in football. And yes, I know that's a ridiculous statement since they just won the Super Bowl. But even more than that. Their defense is sick. Their offense is sick. They never trailed by more than 7 points at ANY MOMENT last season. That's disgusting. They're getting Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley back. I just honestly look down their schedule, and maybe outside of a road game at San Diego, I don't think there's a game there that I wouldn't feel comfortable picking them to win. They can play in a dome (hello, Atlanta) and they can play in the cold slop (hello, Lambeau and Soldier Field). I know it takes a great year to finish 12-4, but at better than even odds, I'll take it.

NE PATRIOTS O 11.5 (-115) -- 25 units. Very similar to the Packers above. The Patriots are going to score a lot of points. It's just science. Maybe they don't have the meanest, toughest team in the league, and maybe they don't have a stellar defense. But they went 14-2 last year with that same unstellar defense. They finish the year with Washington, Denver, Miami, and Buffalo. Can they be 8-4 or better going into that stretch? You're damned right.

STL RAMS O 7.5 (EVEN) -- 25 units. Based on the fact that I think the Rams are poised to be the best team in the NFC West. The best team in any division should be over .500, simple. The start of their season is brutal: Eagles, Ravens, Giants, Cowboys, Saints and Packers in the first 8 weeks. But then things flip completely, and they finish with a bunch of NFC West games, as well as the Bengals and Browns. I'm getting less confident about this as I write, but, I'd like to see this pull through.

PHI EAGLES U 10.5 (+120) -- 25 units. What? Yes, you read that correctly. Eagles under. It's a bit of a hedge bet against a disastrous season, also a bit of a reality check. Michael Vick played out of his mind last year. Can he play that well again? I'm not sure. Can he stay healthy for a full season? Who knows. Do I think Vince Young and Mike Kafka are awful? No, not at all, but I don't think they're the QBs to lead this team storming into the playoffs. We looked downright poor against the Steelers, starters v starters. In addition to 6 NFC East games, there's the Pats, Jets, and Falcons on the schedule, as well as your customary hiccup that has no explanation (2008 Bengals, 2009 Raiders, 2010 Vikings).

IND COLTS U 9.5 (+105) -- 50 units. The Colts have been kings for ages. Pencil them in at the top of the AFC South, it's pretty much set in stone. But now, their rock, he of the laser, rocket arm, is in dire straits and may not make the start of the season. Even with him, how good can this team be? They didn't beat anybody that good last year (Texans once, Giants, Chiefs?) and lost to everyone else legitimate (Eagles, Patriots, Chargers, Cowboys, Texans). To make it worse, they didn't go out and get that much better in the offseason. Not when you compare it with the moves the Texans made. The Colts don't really sign free agents. It's worked for them so far, but teams have been loading up (Eagles, Jets, etc.) by addressing key weaknesses. The Colts have been poor on run offense and run defense for a while, but haven't seemed to address it at all. Even with Manning, what is the ceiling for this team, 11-5? Without him, where do they drop to, 5-11? It's a percentage play, for me. It just seems like this team is teetering on the edge right now, and I wouldn't be THAT surprised to see them topple over.

#061 - Pay to Stay?

Look, we've all heard the arguments on both sides. Should NCAA athletes get paid to play, should they not, should we scrap this discussion completely, should the government go completely communist and then it doesn't matter? All the options are out there on the board. I'm not interested in rehashing all of them and picking which is the best. That's not appealing in any way. Frankly, the analysts like Jay Bilas who are on the side of "Pay" have sounded very thick-skulled to me, just rah-rahing for the players without having a real contingency plan to set it into motion. (Like, only pay college football and basketball athletes, because they make money. Oh, brilliant.) Likewise, those on the side of "Don't Pay" are equally if not MORE obtuse, as they ignore all the realities of the current sporting world in the name of amateurism. Why is amateurism even important any more? The Olympics host professionals. The only reason to maintain amateurism is to maintain NCAA eligibility. Seriously.

So instead of go over the old arguments, I wanted to focus on something that really stood out to me when I sat down to think about what has been going on--notably Reggie Bush, Terrelle Pryor, and Cam Newton. Yes, all of these guys have suffered from their missteps as college athletes, and have left a firestorm of issues in their wake. Now everyone and their grandmother is jumping on the radio shouting about why they should be paid or why they shouldn't be paid or whether or not the professional leagues should come down hard on them. The NCAA has wound itself into this situation where it's unlike any other organization in the world. Really. What can you compare it to? It's not like a union, it's not like a corporation, it's not even like the corresponding professional leagues. And that's why nobody has any answers. They can spin things the way they want, because they're the only ones who have any control over it. They're constantly in investigations, and come out on the other side saying things like, "They paid a national recruiter for information about college recruits." (This is a bad thing in the NCAA, even though it sounds like good business sense.) And then they say more ridiculous things like, "Cecil Newton asked for money for his son to play at Mississippi State, but Auburn and Cam Newton knew nothing about it." (Talk about opening Pandora's Box.)

Understandably, college coaches and athletes and staff members are scratching their heads trying to decide how to continue succeeding in their profession that seems to be overrun with violations (similar to MLB's "Keeping up with the Bondses") while attempting to AVOID those violations. I can imagine that it's very difficult. Nobody likes being left behind, and this is true on both sides of the relationship--schools want to have the best players, and the players want to have what other players have. If Reggie Bush is driving around town in a new Mercedes, why isn't Offensive Lineman Tom driving around in a new car as well? Hell, he's the one who blocks for Bush, opening up massive holes so he can pad his 9.5 yards per carry number.

So I have a proposal. And as much as I am sick of Bilas yapping about paying players every time he opens his mouth, part of my idea comes from something he said. He made reference to the fact that other students at the school are able to profit off of their abilities. They can get internships that pay (and I'm sure even he knows it's pennies compared to a professional athlete) for the skills that they've received from the school. So why can't athletes get that same deal?

Well, it's not that simple. Athletes are playing for the school, which means you're talking about expecting the schools to pay the players. Then you're thinking, "Well, how do they do it? Do they pay every single player $10K a year, and that's that? Or do they pay the quarterbacks more? Or is it an open marketplace where teams will bid on a player the same as the job market?" It's just insane. It opens up so many questions that would likely end college athletics as we know it. There are two main reasons why I think the "pay the players" mission is getting so popular right now.

1) Schools are profiting off the players and the players are getting none of it.

2) Players are ditching school at the first sniff of money, which is bad for the education system, and (more importantly to them) bad for the competition level of college sports.

So here's what I think.

Why not let the players profit off of their abilities while they're in school playing for the team--in every way EXCEPT getting paid to play. Professional athletes make money in lots of different ways, not just from their contract to play with their organization. They appear in commercials, they sign autographs, they hold instructional camps, they make appearances on television shows, they promote items. Why not make this true for a college athlete as well? College is about giving students opportunities and teaching them how to utilize their skills in the real world. There's not a more perfect example than this. A big time program signs a new recruit and he helps them win games and sell tickets. The college benefits. As a result of his newfound celebrity, the local car dealership wants to have him pitch Fords in a commercial. They pay him $2,000 for his appearance, and he benefits. Why would this not make sense?

If I was attending NYU for Acting and Steven Spielberg called me up and said, "Hey kid, you're the guy I want for the sidekick in my next movie," I would not only take the role, I'd be paid for it, AND I'd return to school when it was done. I know this is not exactly the same thing, because that's like saying a player could go play in a professional league over the summer and then come back and play for his team in the winter. It's a little different, but I think the premise is the same. Let the students profit off of their skills. It would teach them something about the real world. A lot more than coddling them in some uber-protected environment would.

College athletics are only as popular as they are because it's a two-way street. It's simple economics--even though people tense up and scream when they think of money and college athletes. An athlete will choose to attend a university on an athletic scholarship because he believes the value of what he is receiving is greater than what he is giving up to go there. And in turn, the school will hand out a scholarship because it believes that it will receive greater value than it is giving up out of the deal. You have to keep up your grades, stay out of trouble, and go to practice if you want to play on the team. If you have a job outside of school, so be it. Good for you, making money off of the hard work you put in. Hopefully you'll get something more out of school than just playing basketball, but if you don't, hey, it's not like you're the first.

I'm not sure that this is the best solution, or if there even IS a best solution. Maybe schools should just completely separate athletics into a minor league system. You don't attend the school, you just play for the Ohio State Buckeyes minor league football team. I don't know. All the possibilities are out there. But it seems to me that if you can provide someone else with a service that they are willing to pay you for, your college shouldn't prevent you from profiting from the transaction (well, unless it's illegal, I suppose).

Maybe then you'd stick around school and actually learn a little something for a change.

#060 - The Tree of Life (2011)

Director: Terrence Malick

Writer: Terrence Malick

Runtime: 138 mins.

What can be said about The Tree of Life that wasn't already said in the two years prior to its release?

I'm kidding, but... not really. It's everything you heard it was going to be. It's a sprawling drama that takes on the biggest, yet most simple, themes; it confuses you greatly; it will evoke probably every emotion you have; and yes, there are dinosaurs.

Probably the most frustrating thing about this film (and this is the type of movie that will force people to refer to it as a 'film') is that all the pomp and all the hype completely overshadowed what was a terrifically written and directed story. It's one powerful, genuinely moving narrative film set alongside a separate powerful, genuinely moving abstract film, yet despite what the creators would love for you to believe, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.

Let's start with what we can see plainly: Brad Pitt is the Father, a straight laced American head of household who works hard and has grown a very rough exterior. Jessica Chastain is the Mother, his perfect foil, a loving, devoted wife and mother who wants nothing more than to see all the boys in her life succeed. Their sons are Jack (the protagonist of the film), RL (the blond who is really a spitting image of Brad Pitt, perhaps even more of a young Ricky Schroder), and Steve (the one who almost never says or does anything). Jack is tormented by his father's iron fist, his desire to be free, and his lack of faith in his mother's God. RL on the other hand, embodies innocence. He has a gentle spirit and shares a musical bond with his father, which presumably frustrates Jack further.

Sadly, we know from the opening minutes that RL dies at a young age, sending Father, Mother, and Jack all spiraling into deep depression. A well-meaning but ill-spoken neighbor offers, "You still have the other two," in a botched attempt to comfort the Mother. There is a lot of crying and a lot of pleading with God, as the story begins its path down the Book of Job.

Then we meet Sean Penn, who is 50-year old Jack, who, in just ten seconds, we can tell is in a loveless marriage with a beautiful, devoted wife, and who is clearly still distraught over the death of his brother. (Presumably, the events of modern-day Jack occur on the anniversary of his death.) And yes, this is about all that Sean Penn brings to this movie. I'm not even totally sure why he's there.

Then we meet the cosmos, and some single-celled organisms, and some dinosaurs. I'm not totally sure what perspective we're seeing these from, perhaps from Jack, as he is the only character who would hold the evolutionary viewpoint. There is truly beautiful imagery, done by fusing landscape shots with small bits of CGI and a lot of naturally created effects (i.e. blown up shots of microscopic chemical reactions). In this way I felt it was very similar to Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, which used the same techniques and actually featured a Tree of Life--and was similarly delayed for years during production.

The problem I found with this whole interlude is that it was trying so hard to be evocative, to tell us something greater about the world and about God and about humanity. But it didn't measure up to the rest of the film. Jack's story (his story as a child) is fantastic; it was--and deserved to be--the focal point of the film. But it was complicated by these other things. Flashbacks, flash forwards, dream sequences, imagined afterlife scenes on a beach. I think Malick wants you to believe that this is something revolutionary, something that's never been done before. I'm not claiming to be an expert on this movie, but I've seen plenty of other movies in my life, and this was not unlike anything else. At some point you can say to yourself, "Well, but it's not WRONG if the point they're trying to make is overt." And you'd be right. It isn't necessarily wrong, but what I felt is that there was this really great developing story with Jack as a child, as he says, "wrestling with his father inside his head," and I wanted more anecdotes, I wanted more 'show me, not tell me.'

I enjoyed it. I think it was effective, and beautiful. And kudos to Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack, as he did a marvelous job. And Brad Pitt was good, as well, which is saying something because I don't have the highest opinion of him as an actor. But I think it was his best role since Tyler Durden and Mickey the Gypsy. My complaint would be that it overshadowed itself. Too much abstract, not enough tangible. The interplay between brother-brother and father-son is compelling enough to not bring religion and creation theories into things. But Malick clearly had a specific story he wanted to tell, so tell it he did. And let's hope it brings him some joy, so that he does not lead the same frozen existence as older Jack.

#059 - Oscars 2011

So, though in the past I've done nothing but horribly in Oscar predictions, I figured I'd give it another run down this year. Of course, things that you think ARE going to win aren't necessarily the ones you'd LIKE to win.

So, here we go:

--

Original Screenplay

Nominees: Another Year; The Fighter; Inception; The Kids are All Right; The King's Speech

I'd prefer: Inception. Simply put, it was my favorite movie, and I think the story it's based on is fantastic. It's incredibly complex, but it works. I know lots of people couldn't get a grip on the dream switching and the layers, but I got it without issue. Here's a movie that juggles four and five layers of action with characters playing themselves and other characters and more than anything the tension of the story leaps out at you. Unfortunately, it's handicapped by being labeled "the dream movie" just as The Dark Knight was labeled "the Batman movie". It's much more than "the dream movie". The dreams are the premise, the real story is about the deepest human fears and emotions.

I think: The Kids are All Right. I liked this movie a lot. I thought it was really clever and funny. And after reading some lofty issues about the historical accuracy of The King's Speech (which I feel will win it's fair share of awards), I think the Academy will end up defaulting to the one movie that nobody can really lodge a complaint with.

--

Adapted Screenplay

Nominees: 127 Hours; The Social Network; Toy Story 3; True Grit; Winter's Bone

I'd prefer: The Social Network. Yes, Sorkin was very Sorkin with his dialogue. But it was an endless barrage, there was talking, there was talking on top of talking, and this movie owed more to its script than any other movie this year.

I think: The Social Network. This one almost seems TOO easy.

--

Animated Feature

Nominees: How to Train Your Dragon; The Illusionist; Toy Story 3

I'd prefer: Toy Story 3. Come on.

I think: Toy Story 3. I don't know why I even bothered writing this out.

--

Supporting Actress

Nominees: Amy Adams; Helena Bonham Carter; Melissa Leo; Hailee Steinfeld; Jacki Weaver

I'd prefer: Hailee Steinfeld. She gets the benefit of being young in the Oscars. She really was the LEAD actress in her film, she was in almost every scene. But as they usually do, they peg younger actors into the "Supporting" category to both celebrate them and give them a chance at winning. She was terrific. It's almost hard to believe she's NOT the hard-nosed, razor sharp lady she portrayed in the movie--which is again the benefit of being young and unknown. You don't already have her pegged as "Oh that's Amy Adams--I know her."

I think: Melissa Leo. She's very deserving. Adams I think got more pub initially, but slowly Leo has gotten the recognition she warranted with her performance. She just disappeared into the character, it was both fantastic and ridiculous, the early 90s Boston outfits and accents. She needs to thank her costume director and makeup artist if she wins.

--

Supporting Actor

Nominees: Christian Bale; John Hawkes; Jeremy Renner; Mark Ruffalo; Geoffrey Rush

I'd prefer: Christian Bale. I think big name actors are all fighting with themselves to be declared the "most dedicated" in the field, but how could you argue with Bale. I mean look at him in this movie. His mannerisms are insanely idiosyncratic. And when you see the post-feature snippet with the real life characters, you can tell he studied Dicky Ecklund's every move until he got it perfect. I'm quite sure Geoffrey Rush was fantastic in The King's Speech (I have it queued up to watch soon), but I doubt anyone could be as superb as Bale.

I think: Toss up. This is almost pegged to the Lead Actor winner. I think if Firth wins lead, there's a better chance for Bale. If he doesn't, I feel like they have to give it to Rush, since ONE of the two main actors in that movie has to win. But my gut is telling me Bale. And he deserves it.

--

Lead Actress

Nominees: Annette Bening; Nicole Kidman; Jennifer Lawrence; Natalie Portman; Michelle Williams

I'd prefer: Hard to say. Haven't seen Rabbit Hole or Winter's Bone, and while I feel like Jennifer Lawrence is a good story and kind of an underdog here, I think I'd have to say Portman. Unlike most people, I wasn't absolutely blown away by her role in Black Swan, but it was an INTENSE movie and she brought it to almost every scene. And you can forgive her for overacting because of the nature of ballet competition--she nearly killed herself just to get to the top, it takes a lot out of you.

I think: Portman. Good for her. I think Michelle Williams did a really fantastic job, but Ryan Gosling really carried that movie for me. Portman was the backbone of Black Swan.

--

Lead Actor

Nominees: Javier Bardem; Jeff Bridges; Jesse Eisenberg; Colin Firth; James Franco

I'd prefer: Holy crap. What a selection. It's kind of sad that Jesse Eisenberg, as key as he was, has basically 0% chance of winning. And I just saw Biutiful and Javier Bardem was GREAT, yet I think he has absolutely 0% chance of winning as well. I loved Franco, and how could you argue against someone who occupied the screen the whole film, yet still turned in a truly fantastic movie. I know from all the pub that Colin Firth was great, but I haven't seen it quite yet. I think the one actor I want to win this award MOST is actually not even nominated--Ryan Gosling from Blue Valentine. I think he was dynamic and disappeared more into his character than some of the other actors, whose characters had quirks they could always default to. Gosling was just a complete person, with strengths and faults and ups and downs. It's really a shame he's not even nominated. Gosling, Franco, Bardem, in that order.

I think: Firth. Would be weird to see Franco win since he's hosting, and the unending parade of "best actor" props for Firth suggests it's going to be his year.

--

Director

Nominees: Darren Aronofsky; David O. Russell; Tom Hooper; David Fincher; Joel and Ethan Coen

I'd prefer: Christopher Nolan, of course. Oh wait, he's not even nominated. It just makes me feel awful to see that. He got overlooked for The Prestige, for The Dark Knight--both of which were absolutely mind-blowing movies for me--and now he doesn't even get a NOMINATION for Inception. It's his baby. He's been working on it for 15 years, and even admitted that one of the reasons he took the job of Batman was to gain enough experience on a mega-concept movie to get Inception right. And get it right he did. I don't think any director had as much influence over his final product than Nolan. He's the best in the business. And yes, that includes the Hall of Fame worthy Coen Brothers.

I think: Aronofsky. Good for him, too. I don't think this was his strongest film, really. In fact, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and The Wrestler were all better, in my opinion. But sometimes you put in your time making terrific movies and eventually the Oscars recognize you for something even if it's not your best work (see Joel and Ethan Coen, Denzel Washington).

--

Picture

Nominees: Black Swan; The Fighter; Inception; The Kids are All Right; The King's Speech; 127 Hours; The Social Network; Toy Story 3; True Grit; Winter's Bone

I'd prefer: Inception. End of story. The best movie that I saw this year. However, there's as much of a chance that anyone actually reads this post as there is of Inception winning.

I think: The Social Network. Though the Academy does like British movies, The Social Network has the buzz and the "now" factor to get the job done this year. Unfortunately I think that's part of the reason why it's not going to last with people. I just feel like, more and more often, we look back a few years later and say, "Mmm, they just missed it. The right movie was there, but they picked the movie that had more buzz." Don't get me wrong. The Social Network was really good. But I just didn't think it was THAT good.

Good luck to all the nominees.

#058 - Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

Director: Banksy (ostensibly)

Writer: Nobody (apparently)

Runtime: 87 min

One of the most awe-inspiring traits an artist can have is self-awareness. Too often you see artists and celebrities engrossed in themselves and consumed by their universe-altering lives that they lose the perspective that they used to have, you know, before they were Masters of the Galaxy. But I'm starting to think that, maybe, with the deluge of critique available on the internet, and the instantly available public reaction thanks to the social networking phenomenon--perhaps artistic self-awareness is reaching the tipping point. Instead of having the rare moment when a big time star can have a laugh at himself, the marketplace is somewhat flooded with either genuine or microwave-ready versions of levity where we're all supposed to go, "See! He has a sense of humor about himself!" The most obvious example of this is Tom Cruise's Les Grossman cameo from Tropic Thunder (and subsequently the MTV Movie Awards), or alternatively, Joaquin Phoenix's mockumentary I'm Still Here when we're supposed to believe that he's just kidding about being a wacko.

The problem with all of this--if there is a problem--is that you can't separate what has been cooked up by a publicist and what is coming from an artist's own true self-awareness. I mean, I tend to think that Cruise's embrace of the Grossman thing is tightly tied to the public's positive reaction; but how aware is he that part of the reason that people think it's funny is because he's Tom Cruise, someone who is seemingly going off the deep end and is always wearing a made-for-tv facade. Jack Black in that role would not have raised eyebrows, because, well, that's Jack Black and that's what he does.

Exit Through the Gift Shop ends up hitting on this very same concept, albeit in a way that I'm not 100% sure of. Either Thierry Guetta, the main character of the film and eventual street art phenomenon Mr. Brainwash, is a real person who has all the traits others claim him to have throughout the film, or he's a real person who was molded and prodded to be the "artist" he becomes by the puppetmaster Banksy. Either way, the movie starts out with what I find to be a rather fascinating authentic documentary about street artists (ones that already exist and are successful) that ends up being hijacked in the end by this ballooning figure of Mr. Brainwash who clouds the art world skies and borders on over-saturating the market. Mr. Brainwash is ridiculous, and unabashedly so, seemingly without any respect of the fact that his success is not due to his own skill, but rather to the overwhelming hype machine created in part by Banksy. At one point in the movie, Banksy claims to have not foreseen the effect that his promotion of MBW would have, but I can only imagine that his very HOPE was to crash through the ceiling of notoriety.

In fact, I partially believe that Banksy shaped Guetta into MBW so he could gauge the impact an artist with relatively no skill could have as long as he followed an established plan of promotion--first covertly, then overtly. According to the film, that impact was monumental. He wasn't overnight going to become the hallowed critical success that Banksy himself was, but MBW ended up being a bit of a smash hit. His art show opening was visited by thousands of people and he ended up selling over a million dollars worth of art. Not quite Banksy numbers, but very impressive. Only, in the end, I have to believe that this sort of hurt Banksy.

Elitism goes hand in hand with art. I think it's one of the main reasons why people enjoy dissecting artists and their work--to vault themselves into some level of elitism. It's why students on college networks share their music libraries. "Oh yeah, John's library is good--but have you seen Derek's?!" It's why people like to discuss their favorite movies and what they thought of the latest big-budget trash. If your favorite movie is Forrest Gump or Pirates of the Caribbean, well then good for you. Now, if your favorite movie is The 400 Blows or Yojimbo, well then, now we're talking! Picking out chic from shit is an essential tool for any would-be snob. But gallery art is probably the MOST difficult medium to work with when doing your elitist sorting. There are no off-key singers, there are no one-liners that fall flat on their face. Stuff that looks kind of weird to you can suddenly be amazing as long as you overhear the right person giving it praise. It's a tough field to follow, especially modern art, where you can't just get by with a collection of names. I personally feel that you have to be honest with yourself and just stick with whatever you like. I know I've been to galleries in the past and have heard people gushing over certain pieces that I wasn't too fond of, and there's an urge to over-analyze it, to convince yourself that you're wrong and someone else is right--but I really do think that the things you like are going to come right out and sock you in the face, so don't worry about looking too hard.

However, I have to admit that by the end of Exit, I started to resent MBW and his success. I practiced the elitism just the way it always happens. And I think that's kind of the reaction they're hoping you have. It feels a little bit like the self-aware (Banksy) having fun with the un-aware (Guetta): "Hey, this movie is so successful, and look at you, you're a big hit!" whilst snickering behind the scenes at his lack of skill and certain-to-be fleeting fame. He even did a spectacular job of selecting headphone-wearing teenagers to give MBW props in the interview portions, in contrast to the articulate adults who posited that MBW's work was heavy-handed and cliche, ripping off those who came before him. But, someone paid money for his pieces. Lots of someones. And lots of money. So I'm curious about how that made Banksy feel, along with Shepard Fairley, and Space Invader. Were they proud of themselves for "building" this budding star? For manipulating the social consciousness enough to make him appear legit? Or did they feel a little bit kicked in the stomach? Their work, which they had hoped would capture the attention of the global community, was being lumped beside the work of a guy with less artistic talent, but more grandiose intentions. After all, I think at the core, what artists want is for their work to be appreciated. Otherwise they would just keep all their paintings inside a locked closet and never show them to anyone. Street artists are performers. When you walk the streets, you're blasted with material left and right, some of which might LOOK like art, some of which might not. Only the best stands out. And I think that's what they want, is to stand out. Is making MBW relevant their way of laughing at the public? Or is it their way of truly accepting the reality that art doesn't have a set of requirements, that you can be good one minute and not the next (or vice versa), and that many of the people in the world simply like art that they're told they should like? I know I'm going to offend a lot of people, but I had a similar reaction to MBW as I did to the novel The Kite Runner. It felt like it was all hype. When I read The Kite Runner, I couldn't help but think, "Here's a guy, who's not really a writer, who badly wants to tell this melodramatic story. And it's got a perfect summer blockbuster story, and it happens to be about a place and culture that is very mainstream." So it's built up as this EVENT, this book that everyone is reading, and you need to read it because your neighbor has read it, because it talks about all this stuff that you don't know about, and can you believe the Middle East is like this? And now, here's MBW, taking this underground world of street art, where you know almost nothing about the players, and pumping it mainstream, plastering it on television and periodicals. And people readily absorb it, because the hype machine is telling them to.

If I were Banksy, I would be disappointed. Maybe he finds enjoyment that his little pet project has become popular enough to open a second show in New York (meaning he's already succeeded in LA and NYC). But I think I would have hoped that he would pop up for a minute, have everyone go, "Hey, look what's happening here!", and then dissolve into nothing. Because artists do want their work to be appreciated--which Banksy's no doubt is--but appreciated fairly. If something is simply better than what they've done, they want to address it and accept it. And, in the same breath, they don't want to be categorized alongside inferior artists. That is why many actors and writers so easily reference older artists and commend their work, yet are hesitant to compare themselves to contemporaries. Being a working artist means you're still in the race, you can't look to your left and say, "Well I just can't beat that person." The legends have already finished the race, we already know the winners and losers--rather, we know the winners, the losers we generally forget. It feels a little bit like Banksy was saying, "I'm sick of being called a vandal with a spray can--so I'm going to show you the difference between what I do and what a guy with a spray can does." That distinction is what drives you to go from hobbyist to artist. That distinction changes your work from whitewash predecessor to million-dollar auction item.

And this is where you really have to question what Banksy is in it for? Is he really just making art for art's sake? Is he playing around with the public, playing around with the critics? Or somewhere inside, does he WANT to have the fans and recognition that he has, and would he be worse off without them? I've seen other people go down the route of "I really don't care what anyone has to say", and it's rather off-putting. When the Coen Brothers (whom I love as filmmakers) won the Academy Award for Best Picture for No Country For Old Men, they acted as if they couldn't be bothered. Like they hadn't just achieved something. Like winning the award now was belittling to them since they had already made so many fantastic films. I think they're brilliant, but I wasn't a fan of this reaction at all. Everyone knows the Academy makes ridiculous selections and perhaps the Coen Brothers should have won earlier awards, but Oscars or no Oscars, their movie was beloved by many, many people, myself included, and I kind of just wanted them to acknowledge the fact that they had REALLY made an impression on lots of people. Poking fun at critics or audiences is one thing--artists should always do that, lest the audiences THEMSELVES begin to grow big heads--but I think having the distinction of worldwide appreciation is one of the clearest signs that, "Dude, you've done it." Banksy wasn't nearly this supercilious, but he did toe the line between thick skinned and aloof. For what it's worth, Guetta/MBW cleared WANTED to be loved. He wanted to be a brand, instead of pretending like he didn't care and hoping it would happen anyway.

It was truly a fascinating movie, and brought to mind way, way more concepts than were presented plainly. I'm probably overthinking it, engaged in an inner battle between the part of me that accepts that I'm a fan, and the part of me that desires to be an artist. But I think the movie turned at the end; when MBW became an icon, Exit Through the Gift Shop went from being an interesting movie about the world of street artists, introducing you to wonderful characters you never would have known about, to being a commentary on artists and social manipulation. If you've read this far, know that I suggest that you see it, and that I hope you will find it enjoyable. This long, long writeup of mine is less about the movie itself and more the outlet I needed to discuss some concepts that I had been thinking about.