Evservations

#066 - NFL Season Recap

2012-01-10T11:24:00.000-05:00

It's hard to believe that the NFL season has already come and gone. Sure, the playoffs are here and I'm as excited as anyone for the playoffs, but the regular season in the NFL is the most salient regular season in all of pro sports. There are so many opportunities for fan interaction with the game, and you can't pitch a stone without hitting someone who follows the game. I'm a prime example of this, as I take part in numerous activities that are closely linked with the NFL season. Here's a recap of how they went this year.

1) Weekly Confidence Pool

12 people, $45 entry

I had a relatively poor start to my weekly confidence pool, which involves picking the winners of every game each week and ranking them with a point value 1-16. I ended up winning the pool on two separate weeks, earning $30 each time, but fell short of the overall season championship. I came in second, 21 points behind the winner, my dear friend and personal hero, James Moran. Still, +$15 on the season isn't bad, especially for a $45 entry. There are a possible 2282 points in the game (17 weeks, 136 pts per week, less 30 for byes) and I scored a final total of 1658 (72.7%). Honestly, I don't know what this means. But I'm recapping the results, and that is a result, so there it is.

2) ESPN.com Fantasy Football

2 leagues, 10 teams each; one free, one $50 entry

I ended up with first overall pick in both of my leagues. Sure, I should have taken Rob Gronkowski or LeSean McCoy, but could you blame me for going with Adrian Peterson? Considering how the year went, it was not good news that both of my teams were built around Peterson and Philip Rivers. On draft day, I couldn't have been happier. Today, I'm a little disappointed. Still, I managed fairly solid seasons, making the playoffs in both leagues (though I honestly stopped paying attention to the free league, an unfortunate side effect of not having prize money to play for). In the pay league, I waded through debilitating injuries to Peterson, Fred Jackson, and Miles Austin (who played maybe two games as the Miles Austin I expected), while Beanie Wells was habitually questionable and Rivers simply stunk up the joint. I squeaked out a third-place finish, though, thanks to ridiculous performances by Matthew Stafford, Jordy Nelson, CJ Spiller, and Aaron Hernandez. This earned me my entry fee back, so the league was a wash.

3) ESPN.com Pigskin Pick'em (Against the Spread)

Free entry, no prizes

This is perhaps the best free, prizeless contest you can participate in, because it's simple to enter and gauges your performance against tens of thousands of other contestants. ESPN.com also always enters its spreads with half-point values to eliminated the possibility of pushes, which is nice and simplifies the results. However, this results in better-than-expected performance against the spread, as there is typically an extra half-point of value added in to the side you want. I bounced around the top 1% of entries for most of the year, and finished ranked #506 overall. I'd guess there are about 75,000 entries who picked all the games, with probably 75,000 more that gave up for portions of the season. The overall winner had 160 correct, for a record of 160-96 (62.5%), pretty remarkable for an entire season. To put that in perspective, this person would have won 19 cents for every dollar they bet, had they placed a bet on every game (assuming odds of -110). My final record was 146-110, 14 off the pace of the leader, good for a win percentage of 57.0%. If I had been able to bet on these spreads every game, I would have made 9 cents for every dollar I bet. If I had bet $20 per game on every game across the season, that would result in a $460 profit. Not bad, considering you need to start with at least $320 before Week 1 to do that. However, you normally can't

4) Hilton Supercontest (Against the Spread)

Free; just tracked picks

I didn't actually ENTER the Hilton Supercontest (contest explained here) because it costs $1500 and requires contestants to turn in their picks IN PERSON to the Las Vegas Hilton (or what was the Las Vegas Hilton) every Saturday, but I did follow along, using the pool provided spreads and making my own picks. You need to pick 5 games every week from the list provided by the casino, and the eventual winner took home over $300,000 this year. The winner, a group by the handle Sans Souci, went 58-22-5 (72.5%), for a sick 60.5 points (pushes are worth 1/2). Using the comparison from above, they would have won 36 cents for each dollar they bet over the course of the season. If they had taken the $1500 they needed for the entry and bet it on 5 games a week, $300 per game, they would have profited $9180 for the season. Instead, they entered the pool and walked home with $300,000. They are smart (and lucky) dudes. My picks were not as good. For the season, I finished 48-36-1 (57.1%) for 48.5 pool points, good enough for 56th place had I entered the pool. Only the top 20 places get paid. Again, this would have netted me 9 cents for every dollar bet. So if I had just used the $1500 entry fee and put it towards 5 games a week at $300 per game, I would have made $2295, instead of losing the entire fee by not finishing in the top 20. Food for thought. Considering I started off the year 5-10-0, I'll take that finish, as I went 43-26-1 the rest of the way (62.3%).

5) Cash Money

Lots of cash in; lots of cash out

It's kind of sad. I went back and looked at my performance in past years in the "put your money where your mouth is" department, and it was pretty awful. I know the cliche is 99% of sports bettors lose money (which is funny because you never meet anyone who has ever lost money) but I will fully admit I was one of those 99% for the last three years. As well as I could do in the contests, I just made bad decisions when it came to real money, and would often wager on things I had no real knowledge of, like college football and Italian soccer. I firmly believe you can't be successful by passively following something, which is how I deal with college football. I like it, I can talk it, but in the past, I felt like the money I was making with NFL bets I was throwing away on college. So I decided to scrap it. The NFL is my primary interest, and that's what I wanted to focus on. So this year, I went for that. And the results were much better.

5a) Preseason Bets (from here)

Losses: 144, Wins: 180.99, Net: +36.99

Losses
-Cincinnati Under 5.5 Wins; 50 for 40
Yikes. This was nowhere close. But, they had an offense full of rookies and a defense that let go of its top cornerback. How was I to know they'd do so well? Oh, maybe because their schedule was very easy.
-Detroit Under 7.5 Wins; 25 for 28.75
Well, I was taking a chance. I knew everyone was all over the Detroit bandwagon. But Stafford and Calvin Johnson played every game, which was the first time in basically ever. And they had those three crazy comebacks early in the year. Without those, where do they finish?
-Pittsburgh Under 10.5 Wins; 25 for 25
It was even odds, their defense is sliding over the hill, and I expected something of a Super Bowl losing hangover. None of it happened. Also, their finishing schedule was insanely easy. That hurt.
-St. Louis Over 7.5 Wins; 25 for 25
I thought either San Francisco or St. Louis was going to win the West this year. I bet on the wrong one.
-Jamaal Charles Rush Title; 4 for 40
10-to-1 odds on Charles didn't seem bad, since he was going to have a bigger role in the offense this year. Of course, that bigger role led to his season ending injury. Oh well.
-Philip Rivers MVP; 15 for 150
Damn him. I mean, given how Rodgers and Brees played, I'm not sure Rivers would have won MVP even if he played safety and returned kicks. But he played poorly most of the year, primarily early on and during a crushing loss at Detroit to end their playoff hopes. I think he might have been injured.

Wins
-Indianapolis Under 9.5 Wins; 50 for 52.50
What a charm. Had this wrapped up in Week 9. The only regret I have is not going stronger on it.
-Green Bay Over 11.5 Wins; 25 for 28.75
Given the better-than-even odds for this, I'm disappointed I didn't bet it more heavily.
-New England Over 11.5 Wins; 25 for 21.74
They had to lose to the Giants to momentarily put this bet in doubt. But an easy finishing schedule brought it home, no problem
-Philadelphia Under 10.5 Wins; 25 for 30
Insanely good odds on this. It was part emotional hedge, part smart play. I'm an Eagles fan. I know we don't do well with immense expectations, and I also know we don't do well with a quarterback writhing on the ground. Both played a factor this year.
-Maurice Jones Drew Rush Title; 4 for 48
12-to-1 odds on MJD. Seemed like a decent call. His only real competition was McCoy, but the factors supporting MJD are easy: he's durable, and he's about the only good thing on that offense.

5b) Weekly Bets

I went ahead and logged all of my weekly bets this year, something that I think will be good as I move forward next year. I started the year off quite rough, skipping Week 1 altogether and then only winning ONE bet during Week 2. From there, though, things went well. Between Week 6 and Week 17, I had 8 winning weeks and only 4 losing weeks, culminating with a monster 96% return during Week 17.

Overall, ATS picks were okay. I was 92-81-9 ATS which turned out to a -6.00 loss. However, starting with Week 6, when I switched sports books, I was 68-56-6 for +202.00. THAT'S what I need to keep going with heading into next year.

I only placed a few ML bets during the year, but they were the best of what I did. I was 4-1 for +124.85.

Totals were pretty pointless. I was 7-7, and lost -2.00.

Parlays were my worst enemy for the year. And I gave up on them after Week 10. I placed 13 parlays during the year, won 2, and lost -171.94 on them. Yikes.

Turns out that teasers were my favorite utility that I had--but instead of betting atrocious 3-team, 10-point teasers like I have in years past, I stuck primarily to 3-team, 6.5-point teasers this year. The payouts are much better, and if you pick selectively, you can turn quite a profit. I was 27-26 on all teasers, which is not the greatest percentage, but it turned a +563.00 profit. That's the advantage of betting something that has better-than-even odds. You can go .500 and still win. The 3-team, 10-pointers are -110, which means if you bet 4 and win 2, you're losing money. Maybe teasers are still a sucker's bet, but I'm focusing on doing them properly--which is to move numbers across as many key values as possible. Instead of teasing something from -14 to -7, look for more opportunities to turn +2.5 into +9.5. (Ending on a half-number with teasers are important. A push is a loss, so having +10 is no better than having +9.5. It's the same result.)

Some of the things I need to be careful with next year are forcing things where they don't belong. That is, if it's Sunday night and I want to run one more bet before the end of the week, I'll sometimes pick a 3-team tease for the Sunday and Monday night game and throw in a total on one of them. This is not a good strategy. Good strategy is to find value in the market, not to bet just for the sake of betting (even though it's fun to do and hard to stop). Another problem I ran into a couple times was having too much dependent upon one team. If you make three or four bets and include the Falcons in every one of them, well, you better hope the Falcons pull through. I was pretty good about this all year, but fell into the trap this past weekend during the playoffs, when I was heavy on the Saints/Lions Under. Look how that turned out.

#065 - My Father's Day

2011-10-11T16:12:00.000-04:00

"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

2011-09-06T14:38:00.001-04:00

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

2011-08-24T11:11:00.002-04:00

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.

#062 - Pat Forde Loves Me

2011-07-18T12:36:00.004-04:00

So, in response to this article (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6746255) written by Pat Forde on July 12, 2011, I sent him an e-mail to his "contact me" e-mail address, ESPN4D@AOL.com (yes, that's really an AOL address). Here's the full text of the e-mail that I sent him, on July 13, 2011:

from	Evan Koch evangkoch@gmail.com
to		ESPN4D@aol.com
date		Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:20 AM
subject		Re: Pay for play?
mailed-by		gmail.com

hide details Jul 13 (5 days ago)

Pat-

The pay for play topic is really ballooning out of control right now. Partially because the NFL, NBA, NHL, and major college athletics are out of season, and there's nothing else to talk about, but also because people seem to be gripping to this idea of, "If people keep breaking the rules, maybe the rules need to be changed." I'm not a rabid opponent of paying college athletes, I just think that you end up drawing so many lines in the sand when you start to figure out how it's going to work. Are divers and fencers and squash players going to be paid, or is it just (men's) basketball and football? Is Jimmy the 3rd string punter going to receive the same amount of money as star quarterback Andrew Luck? It seems that nobody really has a good answer to these questions, they just scream out, "Pay them!"

To me, the real answer comes down to Economics 101: What cost you're giving up versus what value you're receiving. When a budding college football star chooses to go to Ohio State instead of Cleveland State, it's not the value of the education that is drawing him there. (It could be, and maybe sometimes is the case with the Dukes and Stanfords of the world.) Most likely what he's going for is all the potential benefits. He gets to play for a world-class coach, with a world-class staff, and world-class facilities. (Think about the gyms these guys get to use! And the training staff!) He gets national exposure, he gets highlights on SportsCenter, he gets pro scouts at every game, he gets the chance to prove himself against the best in the game. He's much more likely to get drafted higher and earn his first-rounder contract, much more likely to snag an endorsement deal on the other side. All of these things are the added benefits of playing for a college program. All he needs to do is look at a player like Maurice Clarett to realize how difficult it would be to skip that altogether. Almost nobody seems to be addressing this in their arguments. There are the people who shout out round numbers like "They're already getting $200,000 in free tuition!" and "But the school is making $15 million a year off of them!" Think about what a player would be doing if he chose NOT to attend these schools and play for the programs. Maybe he'd have a job doing some manual labor, making $45,000 a year, not pursuing his dream of playing in the NFL. Maybe he'd be going to school, paying for his education at a costly clip. Maybe he'd be playing in some semi-pro league making $200 a game. Whatever it is, I can tell you it is not NEARLY the same value as he'd be receiving if he went to college.

People in the "real world" go through internships all the time. Often, we go through them while in college. As a journalist, I'm sure you have done a lot of intern work, whether it be at a college or local paper earning scraps and free lunch. Is the total value of that internship the sum of all the free lunches you receive? No, it's much more than that. It's the opportunity to learn and benefit down the road. To land a job at ESPN, which I'm sure you never would have received if you skipped all the intermediary steps and just knocked on their door.

I'm not sure at what point people stopped realizing the players are receiving way more than just the cost of the scholarship. Look at Cam Newton. His father wanted to be paid $180,000 in cash for his son to play two years of college football. Instead, he played one year, and now will play for a contract that pays him upwards of $10 million a season in addition to an Under Armour endorsement that pays more than $1 million a year. I wonder how much of that he would have received if he just stuck it out with Blinn College until graduation.

Take care.

Evan Koch

Philadelphia, PA

Then, as a coincidence (or not), he posted the following article on ESPN.com July 18th, 2011. Here's the text, and I will highlight a specific portion I find to be very loving on his part.

Monday, July 18, 2011
Myth of exploited, impoverished athletes

By Pat Forde
ESPN.com

For everyone shouting about the desperate need to pay the poor, exploited, impoverished, trod-up college athletes, I present Allan Guei.

He is going to be a freshman at Cal State-Northridge, and you might have heard of him. Recently, Guei relinquished $40,000 in prize money he won in a free throw shooting contest at Compton (Calif.) High School, where he graduated. Under NCAA rules, Guei could have kept most of it, but instead he gave the money to the seven runners-up in the free throw shooting competition.

Why?

Because he had earned a full scholarship to play basketball at Northridge.

"I feel like I was well taken care of to go to school and play the game I love for free," Guei said. "The position I was in was different from a lot of good kids who needed it more than I did."

Imagine that -- an athlete who doesn't think he's being treated like a sweatshop employee. A scholarship athlete who actually feels fortunate to have a scholarship.

It's true that Northridge basketball is not exactly Kentucky or North Carolina when it comes to producing revenue and exposure for the school. But it's also true that those bluebloods are in the extreme minority. Most revenue-producing football and basketball programs are largely populated with guys like Guei -- guys who are unlikely to make a long-term living playing professional sports and understand the value of a cost-free education.

Guei's remarkable gesture runs counter to the mythology that has taken hold with increasing fervor in the past 20 years. The basic gist is that college athletes are the most mistreated individuals on campus, worked like dogs and barely scraping by while the adults who coach them get rich. There is some truth to that, of course, but for the most part it is a gross exaggeration -- if not an outright deception.

I date the increased popularity of this narrative to the early 1990s, when Fab Fiver Chris Webber whined to author Mitch Albom about not having enough money for a cheeseburger while the school was selling his jersey for a handsome profit. That got a lot of play as a prime example of The Hypocrisy of College Athletics.

The part Webber left out was that he was on the take at that time for thousands of dollars from booster Ed Martin. Oops.

Despite the audacity of that lie, the idea took root: Overworked athletes can barely afford to survive. "Can't afford a cheeseburger" or "Can't afford to go to the movies" became accepted truths instead of wild exaggerations. "Can't afford Dr. Dre headphones" or "Can't afford the latest 4G iPhone" might be a more realistic lament -- although I see plenty of college athletes who can indeed afford those.

For those who feel compelled to monetize everything in college athletics, don't forget to factor in the cost of four years of schooling. At a lot of places, that will run about $200,000. Most students emerge from college saddled with debt that will take years to pay off, but scholarship athletes are exempt from that burden.

What never is factored in anymore is what an athlete can do with four years of free schooling once he is finished -- the knowledge and background to earn a living for a lifetime. If they don't take advantage of that incredible opportunity to earn a degree -- made all the more attainable by the extensive academic support systems created to serve them at most schools -- shame on them.

Even that reckoning still ignores the nonmonetized benefits of college -- maturation, socialization, enculturation, life lessons, friendships made, spouses met, and an allegiance to a place that can last a lifetime. Find a few former college athletes in their 30s or 40s and ask them about their experience. How many say they had a lousy time?

And don't forget this: Most college sports fans identify more with the school than the players. They root for the place they attended, or grew up with -- the old front-of-the-jersey cliché. If that weren't the case, minor league football and basketball would be more popular.

"Why do we like them or cheer for them?" NCAA president Mark Emmert asked rhetorically in May. The answer, of course, is because of allegiance to the colleges. It has far less to do with the players in the jerseys than the jerseys themselves.

If playing for room, board and books were such a colossal injustice, there is a readily available alternative for basketball players intent on a professional career: the NBA Developmental League. Yet almost none of them choose it, despite the fact that the players are paid and there is no academic requirement at all.

Why? Because they know they've got a better gig as a poor, exploited, unpaid serf in college. They've got access to top-flight coaching, top-flight facilities, medical professionals, a strength and conditioning staff, maximum exposure and all the adulation they can handle. The alternative is earning more spending money in a minor league system playing games in second-rate arenas in front of nobody, with older teammates and less-proven coaches.

College football offers the same: palatial facilities, excellent coaching and the chance to showcase your skills on national television to those who do the hiring (NFL teams, companies looking for endorsers). Compare the benefits to being a low-level college intern at a huge company, where the CEO makes tens of millions. It's really not as bad a gig as it's often made out to be.

What might be the most problematic aspect of paying the players is the risk of further separating the athletic experience from the college experience. It would widen the gap between the athlete and the regular students who cheer them on -- and then come back as adults to donate money and build even nicer facilities for the next generation of young studs. And if college is not part of college sports, then move the enterprise off campus and create semipro teams: the Ann Arbor Angels, Tuscaloosa Titans and Norman Conquests. See how that goes over.

It would go over about as well as any plan that calls for paying the football and men's basketball players but stiffing the nonrevenue athletes. If Title IX doesn't squash that notion, campus politics and simple fairness would. And then there is the question of exactly how many universities could balance the books while committing to a significant payment structure for all athletes.

Better to commit to providing a real educational opportunity to incoming athletes. Most of whom are like myth buster Allan Guei -- holding out hope for a pro career, but well aware that a college education is a priceless gift.

"I'm probably not the smartest kid, but I'm going to do what I have to do to graduate," Geui said. "If my basketball doesn't earn me a living, I'm going to fall back on that degree."

Pat Forde is a senior writer for ESPN.com. He can be reached at ESPN4D@aol.com.

#061 - Pay to Stay?

2011-07-04T15:55:00.004-04:00

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)

2011-06-27T11:24:00.005-04:00

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

2011-02-27T18:18:00.003-05:00

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)

2011-02-14T11:51:00.005-05:00

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.

#057 - The Vince Young Problem

2010-11-24T11:45:00.002-05:00

I want to clarify a couple of things up front:

1) I'm not black. (Or Asian or Latin or Native American or biracial or Jewish or Muslim or any of the many, many cultural backgrounds that are prejudiced against much more than white Christian Americans.)

2) I believe there are PLENTY of people that still exist in this world and, yes, in this country, that have racist tendencies, or are just blatantly bigoted. It's a fact, and I wish it wasn't, but god only knows when that fact is going to change. I just hope the number decreases steadily through time.

3) I do not believe I know what it feels like to be prejudiced against because of my ethnicity. And I'm not claiming to.

I just got done reading an article on ESPN.com from Jemele Hill, who I think is a good writer, not that I agree with 100% of the things she says, but she usually comes up with pretty solid topics, albeit sometimes controversially. Here's a link to the article in question. (Likewise, here's a column by Jason Whitlock about LeBron playing the race card.)(And here is an article written by a blogger who seems to appropriately balance the argument in a thoughtful way.) Hill seems to sort of take this waffling stance on the treatment of black quarterbacks--that yes, the ones in question (Donovan McNabb, Jason Campbell, Vince Young) have at times underperformed, most notably Young, but that also their treatment has not been 100% on the up-and-up, going so far as to say that Jeff Fisher doesn't trust VY, and his mistrust has fed into a sour environment for the two.

On top of that, I read a comment in a chat with Bill Simmons yesterday from someone saying: "Funny how you'll blame Vince Young for the issues in Nashville but not acknowledge his career success and Jeff Fisher's lack of it..." What? Jeff Fisher's lack of career success? First of all, he's a head coach in the NFL, and he's the longest-tenured one at that. Something about that SCREAMS "career success" to me. Secondly, he's won 25 more games as a head coach than he's lost. Third, if you think Vince Young has succeeded in the NFL without help from his HEAD COACH, you're just insane. And as far as Fisher's mistrust of Young leading to the sour environment goes, that's a chicken-and-egg argument basically claiming that the chicken made the egg and it's a done deal. I'm a big sports fan. I read stuff from all over, it doesn't have to be my home team. And I read stuff from all sorts of sources--journalists, bloggers, stat people, beat reporters, former players. The bottom line on Vince Young seems to be that he's a pretty talented guy who just doesn't seem to have "gotten it" yet in the NFL. It could be that he was just so dominant in college that he never developed the proper work ethic. He could roll out there on the field and simply walk through teams (as he did on the BCS-winning touchdown run). To make it in the NFL, you need a little bit more than that. Donovan McNabb "got it" and I don't think you'll read anything from anyone claiming otherwise. He works his ass off, he studies up, he showed Michael Vick the difference between putting up stats and winning games (and look how Vick has taken that to heart). He's gotten it for sure--and maybe part of that is because he was criticized so early. Eagles fans wanted Ricky Williams (they were unaware of how insane he was) but Andy Reid went with McNabb because he thought it was an opportunity they couldn't pass up. McNabb came from Syracuse and knew he'd have to prove himself. Young came from Texas and a national championship and thought, "What the heck--I thought I already proved myself?" Some people are just wired differently.

The criticisms on the field that I've seen time and time again of Young don't seem that insane to me. He struggles with accuracy and making quick decisions (these were, for a long time, criticisms of Eli Manning), but he's a hell of a downfield passer and throws a pretty deep ball on top of all the playmaking ability with his legs. I don't know how to say it other than those comments seem pretty dead-on. Now, the flip side of it is, he's had a tough time dealing with team management issues. He doesn't seem to be able to handle getting benched, apparently he's missed a bunch of team meetings, and the bottom line is that you can't really have that from your quarterback--or any of the key players on the team. He disrespected Fisher to his face, perhaps as a result of his feeling that Fisher must have a grudge against him dating back to last season, when Fisher stuck with Kerry Collins through an 0-6 start. Here's a thought: YOU bench your starting quarterback after a 13-3 season. Go ahead, see how easy it is. Was six games too many? Should Fisher have pulled the plug sooner? (By the way, here's the six teams Collins lost to in that stretch: @ Pittsburgh, Houston, @ NY Jets, @ Jacksonville, Indianapolis, @ New England.) If Fisher has a mistrust of Young, perhaps it's because of Young. Not because of his skin color. To make the claim that Fisher doesn't trust a black quarterback is to EGREGIOUSLY overlook the fact that Fisher tabbed Steve McNair as his starting quarterback for the better part of TEN SEASONS, and McNair to this day is the best Titan in team history (Tennessee, not Houston). It seems irresponsible, or lazy, to suggest that the issues in the Titans' clubhouse are related to race. At least, if that were the case, it would mean that Fisher is weirdly selective about who he is racially biased against, choosing only those who seem to openly disrespect him.

I'm not going to sit here and say that there aren't people out there who probably don't trust Young as a quarterback because he's black. It's a shitty reality of this world. But what I am thinking is that those people are fans (or "fans") in some regard, onlookers, and not the men pulling the strings behind the curtain. Could it be writers? Perhaps. But from what I've seen, analysts' critiques of Vince have been pretty fair. He's found himself on his fair share of Greatest College Players Ever lists, and I think few people doubt that his Rose Bowl game against USC ranks as one of the all-time top performances in the sport. But his wild success in college masked a problem that seems to be coming out in the pros--he can't handle failure very well. And I mean even small failures, in game, not being able to stand boos, or being injured and missing games. Somehow, critics have turned Fisher's action of not sending Young back into the game into him "not trusting" Young. "If Brett Favre was hurt like that, would a coach stop him from going back in?" Probably not. But Brett Favre is a hall of fame quarterback who has played hurt many, many times and played successfully. Vince Young, in his short career, has occasionally had injuries that linger and recur. If Fisher sends him back out there and Vince is injured more severely on the next play, wouldn't that suggest that Fisher "doesn't care what happens to him"? It seems like he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Apparently trying to protect your franchise quarterback from injury gets you nowhere these days.

I've been trying to think of ways to address the Jason Campbell problem this whole time, but I don't think I can come up with anything. Campbell has been a solid quarterback in the NFL. Solid, but unspectacular. The Redskins decided they didn't want him anymore, so they dealt him. Certainly it had everything to do with race, since they replaced him with--oh, that's right, a black quarterback. And the Raiders are probably biased against Campbell too, since they've never--oh, that's right, they tried every way they could to get JaMarcus Russell to succeed after drafting him #1 overall. The Raiders never bet the house on Campbell. They traded for him because it was an opportunity to acquire a solid NFL quarterback at a reasonable price, and they certainly didn't have their mind made up as to who would be starting for them. They don't have the luxury of a Peyton Manning or even a Sam Bradford--someone who they know they're going to stick with. But I've paid a decent amount of attention to this team for the last few years, and in my honest opinion, Bruce Gradkowski is the best quarterback they have, and have had for the last couple seasons. He's not awesome, but I think he's fiery and aggressive and makes plays. He's probably not that much better than Campbell, but right now this team has a poor pass offense, period, regardless of who is behind center.

And it's no secret that I love McNabb. I've written about it extensively, and I will openly admit it to anyone. He was my favorite player during his whole run as an Eagle, and honestly, I probably wouldn't BE an Eagles fan if it weren't for him. I don't understand Mike Shanahan's move at the end of the Lions game. Simply put. It didn't make sense, I was angry, I thought he took a winnable game and threw it in the garbage, and followed up by making a bunch of weird excuses that didn't make sense. But what does that have to do with him not liking him for his race? There's no way that Shanahan simply mistrusts Donovan as a black quarterback. Rick Reilly, who has recently written a lot of garbage, pointed out a lot of counter-arguments in a recent column.

Surely, McNabb was at the center of the Rush Limbaugh firestorm. But Rush is an idiot and spouts a lot of baloney and white people will tell you that. He likes being edgy. McNabb handled the ordeal with a lot of class. And, just like Young, McNabb definitely has his doubters out there, and some of them probably simply doubt him because of his race. But what position of power are those people in? Are they running the team? Are they writing the national columns? Are they on television in front of millions? I don't believe they are. ESPN saw to it that Limbaugh wasn't anymore. People out there are going to hate other people for whatever reason they want. You can't stop that from happening. Does that mean that there's a culture brewing in the NFL that signals mistrust of black quarterbacks? I don't think so. Wins bring dollars, and dollars make owners happy. Happy owners make happy coaches and happy players. That's the bottom line, literally, and I think you can see that from the Vick story that's been going on. As much as people hated him for what he did and as scummy a guy he was, he's winning games and lighting the field up, and the team has to stick with him--AND fans are loving it. McNabb brought a lot of wins to Philadelphia and a lot of people love him for it. But he also never brought that ONE particular win and a lot of people are upset about it. What are you going to do? Remember when Peyton Manning was the guy who could never win "the big one" before he finally did? It happens. Nobody doubted that Peyton was a good quarterback. He just was the guy you'd always bet against in the playoffs. The Eagles got rid of them because of a certain team philosophy that suggests not holding onto assets until they're worthless. It sucks. Did McNabb have more productivity in him? For sure. But so did Brian Dawkins when he was let go. So did Brian Westbrook. So did Sheldon Brown. The management of the team just has a philosophy to keep the wheels churning and bring in new talent. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Now the Eagles are 7-3 and everyone's favorite to win the NFC. You can argue that it was rude of them to trade McNabb when they did, but you can't argue that they didn't have winning football games at the top of their priorities when they did. Fans may delude themselves into thinking that winning one season is all that matters. They'd trade in ten winning seasons for one Super Bowl and nine winless years. But that's just what I said--delusion. It's not good business, it's not good management, it's not good for team spirit. You try to win as many games for as long a time as you can. Andy Reid decided it was time to cut ties with Donovan, when he could still get decent value for him, and Reid did him a favor by trading him to a team with money that was still capable of competing.

As much as I love McNabb, the comments that he made that Hill attributes to him in her article seem a little misguided. For one, they were made in 2007, which is a weirdly long time ago when referencing players like Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer. In 2007, Carson Palmer was a very promising young quarterback with a couple excellent seasons under his belt and the Bengals seemed to be turning this around. If he wasn't criticized at that time, it was because the Bengals had been so purely awful for so long that to see them succeed was joyous for everyone involved. And I once again don't understand the short term memory that people have regarding Manning. He was trounced routinely for not being able to win the big one, despite being statistically a tremendous quarterback and winning a lot of games in the regular season. Then he finally won one, and after that point, has continued to lead winning seasons and play lights-out. If he is criticized rarely, it is because he is one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history. But that doesn't mean he was never criticized.

Finally, towards the end of the article, Hill points out that a lot of people suggested Vick move to another position other than quarterback when he returned from prison. Certainly this was because he was a black quarterback, and not because he missed TWO YEARS in prison. The fact that Vick even returned to football at all was a nod to his superior athletic talents. People suggested that he come back in a different role because he threw away his career by being a criminal, because few teams were knocking down his door to come back and be a starting quarterback (which he wanted), and because they thought he could be useful immediately by playing a wildcat or splitback. Suggesting that those comments were motivated by race would be to act blind to the facts: he missed a huge portion of time in prison, potentially irreversibly affecting his timing and rhythm; teams in the league had moved on and worked with new quarterbacks; he was an amazingly effective runner in Atlanta but not as effective passing; making him your starting quarterback would have been handing the keys to someone fresh off of a federal felony conviction who was teetering on the edge of Roger Goodell's death list. It was a very specific case, one that most analysts had absolutely no history dealing with. So they attacked it specifically. And if simply suggesting he moves positions is a strictly "black quaterback" thing, then I would present to you the following: Tim Tebow, Matt Jones, Julian Edelman, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch. Quarterbacks are suggested to change positions all the time, based on their skill sets. It's not restricted to black quarterbacks only.

I know that there is a lot of pressure on black quarterbacks to succeed. But there's a lot of pressure on everyone in the NFL to succeed--white, black, everything in between. And I acknowledge that, as they say, "haters gonna hate," but to take these issues that are popping up with some of the NFL's talent and suggest that they are racially motivated seems a little bit narrow-sighted to me. Anyone associated with the NFL knows that it's impossible to overstate the contributions made by black players--at all positions.

#056 - Day of the Dead: AFC Edition

2010-11-05T08:46:00.003-04:00

So, in regards to the previous post, I just want to clarify that the classifications I listed aren't necessarily "Alive or Dead in the Playoff Race". Of course, especially in a playoff race like the NFC's (notably the NFC West), teams are still going to be technically alive even with poor records, like Minnesota at 2-5 or San Francisco at 2-6. What I mean from "Alive, Dead, or In Limbo" is the play of the teams. What do they give you on a week to week basis? Do they have any hope at turning their season around? Some teams I just feel are more of a threat any given week (the Rams) than others (the Seahawks).

So let's continue, this time with the AFC:

VIVO

New England Patriots -- Well, yeah, it's simple, they have the best record in football. Period. Amazingly, after years and years of teams taking undefeated streaks into late November, including two last year, this year we have NONE, and there's only even ONE team with a single loss, thanks to the Saints and Packers last week. This Patriots team is one of the biggest smoke and mirror jobs Belichick has ever pulled off. I mean where is their headlining talent? Brady, Welker, Mayo, ...? They have continued to be "Team Turnover"--as in player turnover, not keeping the old vets around any longer than they need to, shipping them off for draft picks before they bust out. And it's clearly working. If you take away a second half offensive meltdown in New York, they're undefeated, and against some stiff competition. How can they perform the remainder of the season? Well, I think they're a good regular season team (note: that's a backhanded compliment, they allow 55 more yards per game than they produce). So looking at their schedule, I'll give them 12-4. Prediction: 12-4, AFC East title.

New York Jets -- Everybody's bandwagon favorite. Unfortunately, they laid a stinker against the Packers, and after the bye week--which makes me think Rex Ryan isn't going to turn into one of those Bill Belichick / Andy Reid "Unbeatable After the Bye" types. They have offensive problems, for sure. And if anyone ever slowed down Tomlinson, watch out. But the biggest surprise is the pass defense. They loaded up their guns with two more clips--Cromartie and first round pick Kyle Wilson--but have not improved against the pass at all, giving up 60 more yards in the air per game than last year and already allowing more touchdowns (10 to 8). They improved against the run, however, a filthy-low 2 touchdowns the whole season. It just makes you feel sort of sorry for the defense, that they could hold the Packers out of the end zone and yet still come away with a loss. Luckily, they have games against Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Buffalo still remaining. Prediction: 11-5, Wild Card.

Miami Dolphins -- Look, they've lost to the Patriots, Jets, and Steelers (on a bogus call that I'm still mad about). And now they have to play the Ravens this week. Tough schedule much? So having a 4-3 record is nothing to sneeze at. There are very very few teams who could play those opponents as well as road games in Green Bay (OT Win), Cincinnati (Win), and Minnesota (Win) and come out with the record they have. I like what they do. They play tough defense. Maybe they're not the shutdown team the Jets might be, but you don't get easy touchdowns against Miami, unless you're the Patriots and the entire special teams unit just falls apart. And they obviously play well on the road, an amazing 4-0 on the season. But things have to improve at home. And their stars (Brandon Marshall, Ronnie Brown, and Ricky Williams) have got to start playing better and earning their paychecks. The unheralded guys on the team can't keep holding them afloat. But if all you need is your big-name guys to step it up to go from dark horse to legitimate contender, I'd say you're doing something right. Prediction: 9-7.

Baltimore Ravens -- It upsets me that they lost that overtime game in New England, but the Ravens have already won two of the toughest road tests a team could face--at Pittsburgh and at the Jets. Now, their second half schedule doesn't get any easier for them, save matchups with the Panthers and Browns. But at the beginning of the season I liked them to be the best team in the league, and I still think they're very capable of that. They just need to run a lot of red zone offense with Flacco. I think he struggles. He's got a cannon arm and really likes to unfurl it, but his short-range touch leaves a bit to be desired (sounds like another #5 I'm familiar with). And I think it hurts them in the red zone. He's got a big target now in Anquan Boldin, who seems to be disappearing and reappearing throughout their games. He needs to show up on every play. Don't underestimate the importance of having Ed Reed back. This guy is a twice-in-a-lifetime type playmaker. Prediction: 11-5, in the hunt for the AFC North.

Pittsburgh Steelers -- I'm frustrated with the Steelers this year. I think they outperformed themselves with victories early in the season without Roethlisberger or Polamalu, and now they are left with a bunch of winnable games. But look at who they've beaten this year: Atlanta (in Pitt), Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Miami, Tennessee. Good, not great. They lost their two toughest tests, against Baltimore and New Orleans. I'd prefer to give them a few more games against top opponents before anointing them as many of the talking heads are wont to do. Prediction: 11-5, also in that same hunt.

Indianapolis Colts -- Look, this team has flaws. It's not alarming. It's the truth. They've been gashed by the run. They gave up tons of points to Houston and Jacksonville in losses. But let's be serious about something: there's no way in hell Peyton Manning doesn't win MVP this year. How about losing your budding receiver, Austin Collie? No big deal. What about Dallas Clark for the season? Eh, whatever. Bob Sanders? Melvin Bullitt? Joseph Addai? Donald Brown? How many huge injuries do the Colts have to endure before they're forced to play guys both ways? More than anybody else, this is a one-man team. It's kind of sad, but it's true. You take Peyton out of this lineup and they'd collapse faster than a Jenga tower. That's why he was named NFL Network's 8th best player OF ALL TIME. And that's also why they can take these beatings and keep on ticking, week in and week out. Prediction: 12-4, no road playoff games at 8-8 teams this year.

Tennesse Titans -- Talk about a team that's doing it with defense. Yeah, they're no Steelers or Jets, but here's a team that creates havoc when you play them. Turnovers, touchdowns, sacks, punt returns, the whole deal. They are making the most of their opportunities and are keeping the team ahead while the offense and Chris Johnson "struggle" (721 yards and 8 touchdowns is suddenly a bad season). I'm just worried that they've hit their high water mark. They're giving up more yards than they're producing, and have already created 19 turnovers. Plus they have four games against the Texans and Colts in the second half, as well as a matchup with the Ravens. And who knows what kind of impact Randy Moss will have on the team. I think he's best utilized as a decoy on this team, but you know he gets upset when he's used in that manner. Prediction: 9-7, unfortunate in this year's AFC.

Kansas City Chiefs -- What a turnaround by these guys. I really don't even like to admit it, considering I've been so down on them all year. I just didn't buy that they suddenly got it. But they have it, alright. Yeah, they haven't beaten a lot of good teams if you take away their opening week victory over the Chargers, but the good news for them is their schedule doesn't get that much tougher from here on out. No more games against the Colts, at least. I think they're primed for a bit of a fall-off, but you can't deny that they have a lot of young talent and are clearly the front runners in the AFC West right now. Prediction: 10-6, right in the thick of it.

Oakland Raiders -- Yeah I said it. Any time a team wins back to back games 92-17, you're going to get your props. And they're a hideous missed 32 yard field goal from Janikowski away from being 5-3 right now. And they have a 3-2 record in games when Darren McFadden has not been injured. I think their defense is better than people give them credit for, and if they can beat the Chiefs this weekend in what has become an enormous matchup for the two teams, watch out for them. Prediction: 7-9. Alright, so I'm not that in love with them. But I like what they're doing.

San Diego Chargers -- I begrudgingly put them here just because I think we've all seen this before from them. Struggle struggle struggle, then suddenly boom they explode and win a mediocre AFC West with a Week 17 blowout of Denver. This year though, they have a bit more competition. I think they'll come back from this because of their video games numbers on offense and defense--426 yards per game offensively, 260 yards per game allowed defensively. That's insane. Maybe if they stop getting punts blocked and stop laying the ball on the ground after receptions, they won't lose as many boneheaded games as they have. A road game at Indianapolis might be the only one standing in the way of a perfect rest of the season. Prediction: 9-7. Might be, I said.

PURGATORIO

Houston Texans -- They've been outscored this year by 27 points. They have the league's worst passing defense. They have to play the Chargers, Jets, Ravens, Eagles, and Titans (twice) before the season is out. Don't look now, but they could be headed for a real disappointment, especially after that huge opening week win against the Colts and a 4-2 start to the season. They need to do something defensively to prove that they have it together, and DeMeco Ryans's injury and Brian Cushing's sub-par post-steroids play are only making it worse. A round of applause for Arian Foster, he's been a wrecking ball this year. But the Texans should be learning by now that offense can't win you every game. Prediction: 8-8.

Cleveland Browns -- I hated this team more than any when the season started. Why? Because they were starting Jake Delhomme. I mean, seriously. Why would you do that? But you know what? They've played hard. And Seneca Wallace and Colt McCoy have done what Jake hasn't done for two years--given their team a chance to win. Nobody else in the league has played Kansas City, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Tampa Bay. All of those teams have 5 wins. That's insane. And they still have New England, the Jets, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh to go. Yeah, they're not going to win a lot of games. And yeah, their win over the Saints was a bit of a miracle. But I'm suddenly on the Browns bandwagon. Colt McCoy's my man. Prediction: 5-11. But things are looking up!

MUERTO

Buffalo Bills -- Sigh. I really wanted to give them a Purgatorio. I did. But I just can't. Not when they're 0-7 and hands down the worst team in the league. I love what ol' Seamus Fitzpatrick has done with this offense. This guy will take whatever shot you want to give him and pop right back up in your face. He's a little bull dog. And Roscoe Parrish and Steve Johnson have been revelations at receiver. They still have a few winnable games left on their schedule, so let's give three cheers for the Toronto Bills this weekend! Prediction: 2-14.

Cincinnati Bengals -- Whatever. They've been in every game they've played, and they have potential. But I used to like this team with Carson Palmer at the helm. Now they're just trotting out a retread team and focusing more on their reality shows. I think their window has passed. Prediction: 6-10.

Jacksonville Jaguars -- What makes me interested in this 4-4 team? That they've been outscored by 61 points this year? That they're 28th in passing defense and 22nd in rushing defense? That if you take away the Indy win, they've beaten teams that are 2-6, 0-7, and 1-6? I'm not buying what the Jaguars are selling. (And it seems nobody is, ZING! That's an empty stadium joke!) Prediction: 7-9. Or something.

Denver Broncos -- The fans want Tebow. Give them Tebow. They're getting outrushed by 87 yards per game. It can't hurt. Also, I'm running out of steam. Prediction: 5-11.

#055 - Day of the Dead: NFC Edition

2010-11-01T10:40:00.006-04:00

Week 8 is over, which means we can officially start to eliminate some teams from contention--even if some of them are not mathematically eliminated. Coincidentally, November 2nd is Dia de los Muertos in Mexico, and also Election Day in the good old US and A. What does election day have to do with it? Well, just like in American politics, the race for the NFC West is between a bunch of good-for-nothings that just like to take your money without giving any real effort to earn it. And also, just like in American politics, SOMEBODY has to win. Gulp.

Let's break the NFC and AFC races into three categories: Vivo (Alive), Muerto (Dead), y Purgatorio (Somewhere in between--just like that hip new Matt Damon movie! Which looks totally weird and stuff!)

NFC

VIVO

The New York Football Giants -- everyone was proclaiming them to be the beast of the least after their second half dismantling of the Cowboys, which almost turned into an epic collapse against the Cowboys, which turned into a not-so-impressive victory over the Cowboys thanks to David Garrard and the Jags this weekend. But before we crown them champs, let's look at this: so far this year they've beaten the Cowboys (1-6), the Lions (2-5), the Texans (4-2), the Bears (in the Jay Cutler Walking Zombie game), and the Panthers (1-6). In between they got hammered by the Colts and the Titans. Luckily for them, they only play one game against the AFC the rest of the year (home vs. Jacksonville), but they do have to play four games against the Redskins and Eagles, which are always tough, and road dates in Seattle and Green Bay. They could go 5-4 the rest of the way to finish 10-6 and an almost stone cold lock on a playoff spot, but then again, we've seen them fall off the cliff before (5-0 to start last year, finished 8-8; 11-1 to start 2008, finished 12-4 and lost first playoff game). Prediction: 9-7, still good enough to secure a playoff spot.

Philadelphia Eagles -- Currently 4-3, they have a LOT of tough football games to play the rest of the year, including 2 with the Giants and next week's game against Indy. The good news is, if Michael Vick is on his game, they could beat anyone. The bad news is, sometimes Michael Vick has games where he couldn't hit the broad side of Terry Bradshaw's bald dome. We're young and pretty talented, and the thing that helps that combination is confidence. And right now, coming off of a brutal fourth quarter meltdown against the Titans, I'm worried about confidence. Nate Allen was playing like a star until Kenny Britt burned him deep, and now I'm concerned he's going to overcompensate against a Colts team that destroys defenses on underneath routes. Prediction: With Minnesota and Dallas looking like tumbleweed right now, it's not a stretch to finish the year 5-4 to go 9-7 and hopefully snag an NFC Wild Card.

Green Bay Packers -- At the beginning of the year, I thought they were the class of the NFC. Now, after taking some time to get their legs under them, they have big wins over Minnesota and the Jets in back to back weeks despite lackluster offensive performances. They have a swarming, aggressive defense, and that's a good basement to fall back on when Rodgers is off. Week 12 they play at Atlanta in what could go a long way to determining the NFC top seed, and then two weeks later they play at New England in another brutal matchup. But the rest of their games aren't so daunting. Prediction: 11-5, first round bye.

Atlanta Falcons -- At home, they are dominant. On the road, you have to question their poise. A lot of that falls down on Matt Ryan, and it's one of those things that hopefully he grows out of (you know, like Peyton Manning's "he can't win big games" tag). But if you start to peel away some of their key players, you are left with a team that has some gaping holes. Beyond Roddy White and Tony Gonzalez, what do they have in the passing game? Beyond John Abraham and Curtis Lofton, how strong is their defense? You can attack them at their weaknesses and try to limit their strengths. But their schedule the rest of the way is pretty favorable. Prediction: 12-4, first round bye.

New Orleans Saints -- The defending champs are alive and kicking after a big win against Pittsburgh. They just have seemed out of sync all year and perhaps injuries to the offense and defensive secondary are to blame, but it could just be that they caught the league by storm last year and this year teams studied them up. You expose all of your secrets in a long playoff run and if teams were careful enough to watch they could have picked up on a lot of tendencies. That doesn't mean the Saints are an open book. They remain a tough team to beat, even with their slow start, and if they ever start clicking like they did last year, watch out. Like Atlanta, they have a pretty favorable schedule the rest of the way, if you take out back to back road games against the Falcons and Ravens weeks 15 and 16. Prediction: 10-6, wild card.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- You have to give them credit for the way they've played so far. They got steamrolled by the Steelers and the Saints, but have taken care of business in all their other games, including a wild comeback against St. Louis last week. Josh Freeman gives them a chance to win, and that's about as good as it gets with a second-year quarterback. Unfortunately for them, it looks like their team has a lot of young, unproven, low-ceiling talent that has to get by on playing hard and making the most of their opportunities. You might say, "Why is that bad?" It's only bad because instead of saying that they're primed to dominate in the coming seasons, I feel like it's more likely that they're primed to return to mediocrity, a bunch of 7 and 8 win seasons in the future. This year, though, they're a bit of a darling, especially in the NFC. Will it last? Unlikely. Tough games against Atlanta (twice), Baltimore, Washington, Detroit, San Fran, and New Orleans. Prediction: 7-9.

St. Louis -- They're tough. End of story. I'm not a Sam Bradford fan, I didn't get the hype surrounding him, I didn't see what separated him from Colt McCoy and all the other quarterbacks out there. But he's getting the job done. Steven Jackson remains the league's best underutilized running back. Teams crowd the box to stop him and Bradford has been making them pay, at least so far. But the offense is not the story with St. Louis. They're about average. Their defense this year has completely revamped--if you take out their blowout Detroit loss, they have not given up more than 17 points all season. Last year they allowed 25 points or more TEN TIMES. Kudos to Steve Spagnuolo. They have two games remaining against San Francisco, including next week, which will be season-defining games for both teams. Prediction: 8-8, your 2010 NFC West champs.

Detroit -- What? How could I put Detroit at 2-5 in the "Alive" category? Well, it's not always about record, people. This team plays HARD. They're a tough out. Just ask anyone. Ask St. Louis how it felt. Ask Philadelphia how scared out of their minds they were when Detroit got the ball back down 3. Ask Green Bay why they couldn't put them away. Ask Washington how it felt to blow their lead this week. Ask Chicago how it felt to escape with that heaven-sent victory. They have two advantages that no team can stop: Megatron and Suh. Calvin Johnson gives them the league's single scariest receiving threat. He can go get it in double-, triple-, quadruple-coverage. And Jahvid Best has been pretty explosive out of the backfield, at least posing a threat of the run game (despite limited results in recent weeks). And Suh is the real deal. I'm sure Gerald McCoy is fantastic, but looking back, I think you have to question the draft gurus who ranked McCoy ahead of him. 6.5 sacks on the year and a fumble recovery for a touchdown this past week. Those are Joey Porter numbers, but Suh is an interior lineman. Detroit has a tough, tough schedule the rest of the way (Green Bay, New England, the Jets, Miami), but that doesn't mean that any of those teams WANTS to play them. Prediction: 5-11. But it's not always about records.

PURGATORIO

Seattle Seahawks -- Yeah, they're leading their division. And yes, they are ahead of the Rams, who I just put in the "Vivo" category. But what's going on with this team? They lost on the road at the Rams 20-3 and on the road at Oakland 33-3. Seriously. And no, it's not 2002. These Rams and these Raiders were a combined 6-26 last year! While being outscored by 443 points! Seattle is a tough team at home, but is that going to really cut it? If you're just a cadaver on the road, you have to win EVERY home game to make it count. Can they win every home game? I don't think so, but they do have a chance to turn it around. Prediction: 7-9. Carroll is back for next year.

Chicago Bears -- Remember when they were lighting the world on fire? Well, even then I had serious doubts about the team. I just don't see how they are any different now from last year. Mike Martz is regarded in some austere manner in the NFL, but when was he last successful? Turmoil in San Fran. Turmoil in Detroit. He was the king of kings when he had Kurt Warner at the helm, but I think Kurt Warner proved in Arizona that it probably had a lot more to do with KURT WARNER than Mike Martz. Jay Cutler is super talented. I think. But you know how some guys just have to "get it"? He's not "getting it" right now. Instead, he's getting hit. Offensive line troubles are one of the worst omens a team can experience. Two of their wins came from Calvin Johnson's bizarre decision to smash the football into the turf and Green Bay's atrocious fumble in the fourth quarter. They're obviously reeling right now and I'm not positive they ever had it together to begin with. Now's their chance to prove me wrong. Prediction: 7-9.

Washington Redskins -- It breaks my heart to see all this controversy with Donovan McNabb. I mean what was Shanahan thinking pulling him with 2 minutes left down one score? It just doesn't make sense. They were 4-3 with a chance at 5-3, instead they have left themselves on the outside looking in. If you look at their games this year, they've played (almost) every game tough. Lost to Indy by 3, Houston by 3 (in that gut wrenching overtime game), Detroit thanks to a ridiculous series of plays, beat Philly in a close one, beat Green Bay in OT, beat Chicago thanks to Mr. DeAngelo Hall's 4 INTs. You can pretty much pencil them in for close, grind it out, field goal-laden games. Is that going to get the job done? Probably not. Their schedule from here on out doesn't get any easier. Prediction: 8-8. Better luck next year.

San Francisco -- Yeah, I'm stubbornly holding onto this. While it looks more and more like the Rams will wrest the NFC West championship, I still think San Francisco has a shot. They have executed worse than just about every team in the league this year, but are really only 2 1/2 games back right now to two teams who are playing above their heads. Mike Singletary is a good guy, and I hesitate to offend my few readers, but I just don't think he's right to be a head coach. And Alex Smith needs to get as far away from San Francisco as he can. I think sometimes it just works out for a quarterback. Look at Brady in New England. He just sort of fell into a position with a good team around him and he performed and gained the confidence of his coach. It worked out for him, and he's earned everything he's got. I'm not saying Alex Smith is Brady, but don't you think there's a reason this guy was at the top of everyone's draft board? He's played well at times, but has had more coaches than Elizabeth Taylor has had husbands, and in turn, he's got about as much confidence as any guy whose girlfriend used to date Shiancoe. I hate to say it, but maybe Troy Smith is the answer, at least for now. Who knows? They're going to lose at Green Bay and at San Diego, but their other games look like this: Arizona twice, Tampa Bay, St. Louis twice, and home versus Seattle. Who says they can't win those games? Prediction: 7-9. Good effort, boys.

MUERTO

Dallas Cowboys -- Don't tell me there's a way to recover from 1-6. There just isn't. Not the way they're playing. They had ONE opportunity salvage their season in a wide-open NFC race, at HOME against Jacksonville, a team with a pass defense about as good as yours or mine. As is typical of a team full of veterans, instead of bleeding their hearts out, they dropped a whole bunch of passes that led to interceptions and botched a bunch of other chances to come back--even when the Jags were almost BEGGING them to. Kitna's done a hell of a job for a guy who had to step in cold turkey. He's not clicking right now and I'm not sure he ever will, but Cowboy fans should consider that before they call for his head. I guess that's why Andy Reid says having two quarterbacks is a beautiful thing. Prediction: 5-11.

Arizona Cardinals -- Don't try to sell me on Derek Anderson or Max Hall. Hey, everyone is rooting for Max Hall. Come on, he's a nobody who came stumbling down some mountaintop into a starting quarterback role. But this offense is just miserable right now (more credence to the "yeah, it was Kurt Warner" theory). Could you imagine Terrell Owens in Fitzgerald's shoes? (Roll tape of 2009 Buffalo Bills.) A lot of talent on this team, and I really hope they don't blow it up. Donovan McNabb could very well be available after the season, and as I've said for months and months, I think this is the place he should have gone the whole time. Prediction: 6-10.

Minnesota Vikings -- Brett Favre. Brett Favre. Brett Favre, Brett Favre? Oh, Brett Favre. The Vikings have like 49 terrific players on their roster, and yet, this is where we're at? Why? For a few reasons. One, because Brad Childress has as much conviction as Brad Childress. Two, because Brett Favre turns every team he goes to into his own personal soap opera set, ignoring coaching advice, ignoring playcalling, ignoring preseason, ignoring the other team's cornerbacks, ignoring his own glaring health issues. Just hang it up right now, Brett. You're one of the legends, and I think fans across America would like to keep it that way. Honestly, take a time machine to 4 years ago, and tell sports fans, "Hey, in 2010, everyone is going to hate Tiger Woods, LeBron James, and Brett Favre." Some fans could buy it on the "they got too good it was no fun to cheer for them" angle. But to be where we are now? I just can't believe it. Mostly about Tiger, but Favre has just been on a constant legacy landslide for three years now, and it ain't getting any better. Prediction: 8-8. Yeah, not bad, but that's their best potential outcome.

Carolina Panthers -- I don't think I really even need to elucidate the reasons here. Prediction: 3-13. Instead, I leave you with a video of the best Panthers performance of the season. Cheers.

#054 - The NBA is Back (and Better than Ever?)

2010-10-29T12:24:00.003-04:00

It seems like it's been two whole weeks since anyone talked about the NBA, but look at that, before you know it, it's back and consuming headlines and Top Plays highlights. (And new Nike commercials.) Some people are calling it "The Most Anticipated NBA Season Ever", which I guess could be valid, since honestly, most NBA seasons are not really that anticipated (10 of the 16 playoff teams are decided before the season starts, most veterans coast until May, only players in contract seasons really give it their all); however, I think Jordan coming back post-baseball, post-Orlando loss was a little bit more interesting, going back and looking at it.

There's definitely a good bit of manufactured hype going into this season. "Old Big 3 vs. New Big 3", "Kobe vs. Lebron and Wade", "Is Durant the best player in the league?", "Where will Carmelo go?". They're all relatively intriguing stories on their own, but there's something of a media machine that's trying to pump up the NBA right now. Why? Because the NFL owns it. Don't try to defend it, NBA fans. The NFL owns it, plain and simple. And the NCAA tournament owns it. So the NBA has to do something to capture the attention of fans, because right now the product on the floor is as close to ideal as they're going to get. They have the perfect set of heroes and villains, tons of young talent, highly anticipated debuts:

Lebron in "South Beach" (Fine, Bosh too. His reps made me do it.)
Blake Griffin, John Wall, and a Sacramento Kings duo that makes grown men poop in their pants
Post-op Amar'e in NYC
The first ever legitimate deterrent to draft tanking--contraction! Goodbye, Toronto! (Toronto's response: "Who are you? What is basketball?")
Kevin Durant's "that's weird, the other 11 guys got gold medals too?" face (Just kidding, Durant is the league's most natural fan favorite. Did you hear the story that he was upset at a magazine for running a photo where he was bigger than his teammates?)

See, the storylines are endless, as you can see by the five I listed above. So it's not like there isn't anything to get excited about, it's just that... it's TOUGH to get excited about it. The start of the NBA season comes right in the middle of the NFL schedule, to the point that even I was like, "Crap, there's NBA games on tonight?" before Tuesday's debut. And the best opportunity that the NBA has to showcase the general excitement of the playoffs is wasted by letting TWO MONTHS pass after the NCAA Tournament. Could you imagine if the next weekend after the Final Four the NBA playoffs started? The momentum that they would have would be unbelievable. People would be on the basketball bandwagon, they'd be getting all excited about Oklahoma City and Milwaukee as the little-guys-that-could. Unfortunately, the schedule doesn't pan out that way, and the NBA playoffs come around in May and June, they take 2-3 days off in between (like Stan Van Gundy has pointed out. I actually like that guy, sometimes.) and really people want to be outside enjoying the weather and baseball games (baseball might be boring to watch, but let's face it, when the weather's nice, they are fun as hell to go to). The NBA is just poorly designed as it stands now. And I wish it wasn't true, honestly, because there are some really entertaining games between the league's top teams, and some of my favorite sports personalities are NBAers--like, if you haven't seen the Steve Nash FIFA commercials, you HAVE to, IMMEDIATELY. (Here's the link.) And if you follow Durant on twitter (http://twitter.com/kdthunderup) he posts ridiculous stuff like "drinking apple juice and playing madden online with my cuz" at 11:45 on a Friday night and "practicing on my off day with RWest in my backyard, then we're going to eat cookies and watch the cosby show". And as much as I am sour on Lebron and the whole Heat crew right now, he's still a force to be reckoned with, both on the court and in the public eye. He's got a knack for entertaining people.

So, without further ado, my thoughts on Week 1 in the NBA:

Celtics d. Heat 88-80

People tried to hype up "The New Big 3" vs "The Old Big 3" (Boston fans counter with "The REAL Big 3" or "The ORIGINAL Big 3"--no, they're not defensive about age or anything), but the reality is there was no MEANING to the matchup. The Lakers vs the Celtics has meaning right now, because they've been at each other's throats for 3 seasons. But this is the Celtics, a veteran team, playing a bunch of guys that have never played together before. There's no history, there's no rivalry, they're just two of the better teams in the East. Maybe after they sock each other in the teeth a few times, the game will take on greater importance. But after one showing, I don't think anyone was surprised to see the team that has chemistry and experience beat the team that was just recently cobbled together (despite being designed 3 years ago--CONSPIRACY!). And from what I've read and seen, this game turned into Lebron trying to break down everything one on one, the same way he used to. And it got ugly. His 8 turnovers are proof of that, and Wade/Bosh combining for 21 pts on 7-27 is even further proof. I play a lot of basketball, and I know from personal experience that sometimes it's a lot easier to just be the alpha dog on a team where everyone knows you're the alpha dog. Sometimes when you combine players with such similar skill sets, it gets messy. They clear it out for Lebron and let him go one on one, then the next possession clear it out for Wade and let him go one on one. It works a lot better when your main players have their own niches--a la the Celtics. And Bosh does not seem like the answer to Lebron's dreams. Anyone who ever watched the Cavs know that Lebron's best offenses were ones that were in constant motion. Anderson Varejao was the second best player on that team for five years, because he was always moving. He didn't stump himself in the post, calling for it, trying to push his way towards the basket. He slipped behind defenders, got rebounds, hustled like crap, was a little bit dirty and sneaky, and was really a favorite of mine. Lebron needs shooters to space the floor. Why? Because he honestly doesn't need anyone else to run the break with him. When he's got a head of steam, MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. And when he's driving the lane, the last thing he needs is for bodies to clog his path. Wade is a bit better at getting that quick motion pass off to the post players as he starts to drive the lane. Lebron, unfortunately, as talented as he is, can't really drop it off in mid-drive, something that Chris Paul does 15 times a game and has almost revolutionized--he makes a cross, drives towards the paint, but a step or two before he gets too deep he snaps a quick bounce pass off to the post man for an easy layup. It's beautiful. Lebron kind of needs to make the pass at Point A or wait until he's all the way at Point B as he did numerous times against the Sixers, who seemed determined to stop him from beating them with layups. But against the Sixers, Lebron found teammates (usually James Jones) on the wing for jumpshots. He didn't get those little dumpoffs to the post players for layups. Bosh is a good player, but he was better when the offense was facilitated around him, with guards who were paid to pass him the ball. Not that I know what I'm talking about, this is just kind of how I view it right now.

Thunder d. Bulls 106-95

I don't want to insult Chicago fans (and really, they don't need it, what with Jay Cutler and all) but the Thunder didn't play a particularly good game in this one. Admittedly, Durant got a lot of calls. That's something that is going to happen throughout the season. He could be on a record setting pace for free throws made, since he shoots such a high percentage, and that might end up being something that angers lots of opponent fanbases throughout the season. But he wasn't in rare form, they had almost no inside presence, and their team outside shooting was suspect. And yet they still won by 11. I know it hurts the Bulls to lose Boozer right after signing him, and that will be something they need to work through, but they could have stolen this game and didn't. Admittedly they were pretty off their game, but if you needed some sort of confirmation, then here it is: the Thunder are for real. AND they currently sport the league's top home court crowd. Without question.

Cavs d. Celtics 95-87

Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison combined for 4 points and 4 rebounds in this game (Mo did not play). Yet, the Cavs won. Against Finals runner-up Boston just after Boston dismantled the Heat. Honestly, it was either a let down game or a clever ploy by Boston to get into Lebron's head ("Yeah, we just lost to Cleveland after beating Miami, damn Cleveland is a good team!"). JJ Hickson is going to have a big year. And why not? They're not going anywhere, they have amongst the LOWEST expectations in the league, why not let this kid run wild for a season, develop some young talent, draft well next year and try and make a run at the playoffs? He could be really good, believe me. Especially if he develops smoother ball handling and a 20-foot jumpshot.

Magic d. Wizards 112-83

The Wizards are content with employing that strategy from above, just letting John Wall run wild, for good or for bad, and not caring about the box scores. He took 19 shots, 10 more than any teammate, and missed 13 of them. But sported a nifty 9/3 Assist/Turnover ratio. He'll be exciting to keep track of. But the real story here is Orlando. Not because they trounced a team they should trounce, but because there's a lot of teams they should trounce and they will do it. They're going to have the league's best record this year. They've been nearly unbeatable at home for 3 years and have a couple seasons' worth of experience edge on the Heat. This is a team that likes to win games, and I'm not convinced they've fallen into the complacent "Let's just make the playoffs" mindset yet. They're going to stomp the teams they should stomp, and it's going to lead to a lot of wins in the regular season. I don't think it'll turn into anything real by the Playoffs, but it was worth the 13/1 bet I put on them to win it all--since I believe they'll have home court in every series.

Predictions:

Scoring Leader: Durant, unless Carmelo gets traded to NYC fast

MVP: Durant, Howard as runner-up

East Top Seed: Magic

West Top Seed: Lakers

Blake Griffin Games Played: 58

Lebron 40-point Games: 4

Heat Wins: 55

Posts I write on the NBA: 3

#053 - NFL Season Win Totals

2010-08-11T12:16:00.003-04:00

Take a look at some of Bodog's NFL season win total props with me: http://sports.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-team-props.jsp. I haven't started to do really ANY research into the upcoming football season, which is kind of sad, since I've been telling myself literally every day for the last 3 months to start getting into it. But I figured it was about time to check into some season win total numbers and see if I can't find a couple bets worth shooting for.

Baltimore Ravens - 10 Wins (O -120 / U -110)
Looks like there's just a little bit of action going on the Ravens at 10 wins. But really, I think this is a prime bet. Yeah, they only had 9 wins last year, but what reason do you have to think they won't improve this year? The big question marks on their schedule are Week 1 at the Jets (potentially without Revis), the Patriots, Saints, and Pittsburgh and Cincy twice. However, they get Pitt in Pitt week 4--also known as before Roethlisberger comes back. And the Saints game is at home and honestly quite winnable. I like the Ravens for at least 10 wins this year, as I think they'll win their division and 10 wins will be necessary to do that.

Buffalo Bills - 5.5 Wins (O +125 / U -155)
The odds are a little steep on the under, but let's be real--the under is the bet to take. The Bills do get the Lions at home, but other than that, there are no easy games on their schedule. And they'd have to win 6 games to lose this bet, which is what they managed last year thanks only to a gift victory from the Colts in week 17.

Kansas City Chiefs - 6.5 Wins (O -140 / U +110)
This is right now my favorite offer on the table. I don't really know why, but there is a bunch of action on the Chiefs on the over, which, yeah I guess they're kind of a hot team right now, people look at them as sleepers. But they won 4 games last year. FOUR. They'd need to win 3 MORE games this year to jump into that over category, and while San Diego is looking a bit weaker this year, Oakland, I think, is going to compete with them neck and neck. I will admit that sometimes I miss things that everyone else sees, but I'm just not seeing the improvement here.

Pittsburgh Steelers - 8.5 Wins (O -130 / U EVEN)
A couple things here: one, the Steelers are a nationally popular team. People like to bet on them, they always have pretty steep spreads because bookmakers know people will bet on the Steelers anyway. Two, they are missing Roethlisberger at the start and are kind of in shambles as an organization, which is odd since they have been so tightly run as long as I can remember. But they open the season with Atlanta, Tampa, Tennessee and Baltimore in the first 4 weeks, weeks that supposedly Roethlisberger will miss. They could easily start the season 1-3, and be looking at needing to finish 8-4 to cover this total. Not that they couldn't do that, but remember, even with Roehtlisberger and Holmes last year, they only went 9-7 and struggled in losses to Kansas City, Cleveland and Oakland.

#052 - Inception (2010)

2010-08-05T10:28:00.008-04:00

Director: Christopher Nolan

Writer: Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan

Runtime: 148 min

There's kind of a sadness in me. No, I was not disappointed with Inception. No, it's not a bad movie. And luckily this time around none of the bright young stars of the movie is tragically gone. It's a little bit different.

Five years ago, I would have said Christopher Nolan was one of my 20 favorite directors. At that point, I had seen Memento and Batman Begins and was pleased with both of them. But then came The Prestige. And then came The Dark Knight. And now Inception. What does this make me think now?

If I heard the title of a movie that's being made and nothing more than that, the one director that would make me most excited to hear pinned to the title is Nolan. Nobody else can eclipse him, at least not right now. And that's not to say I don't get beyond pumped for new movies by Wes Anderson or Darren Aronofsky or David Fincher or Michel Gondry or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Coen Brothers. They're just kind of a group of directors I like to put in section 1B.

1A is Nolan. And it's not because he makes movies with such a well-honed singular style that disregards all the conventions of modern cinema and blazes a path of his own, like the Coen Brothers. And it's not because he's an artist with the camera, like Gondry. And honestly it's not just because he's a wildly intelligent guy and his acumen bursts through all seams of his work and interviews. Really, it's because he's such a brilliant guy who wants to make people think and sort through all the details of his movies with a fine-tooth comb, yet he DOESN'T shun the concepts of the theater that bring people through the doors by the thousands. Michael Bay might be trite and overindulgent, but people still go to see his movies. Millions. Why? Because he embraces the screen. He fills the screen with images and fills the auditorium with sounds that get your heart racing, giving you the two-hour thrill ride you pay $7, $8, $10, $15, $20 for. And Nolan embraces this too. He's totally gung-ho about IMAX because he's positively giddy about the amount of detail he can fit into one frame. The little hairs on your neck? Got 'em. Paint chips on the wall? Got 'em. Drops of water beading on a glass? Got those, too. The "movie" experience is just as salient as the "film" experience, at least for me.

So why does this make me sad?

Here's why: Nolan has explicity stated in several interviews that Inception is his labor of love. The story that he's been working on since he was a teenager when he first got into writing, the idea that he's been hammering out for at least 9 years since he first pitched his script to the studio. In fact, he's said that he took the job directing the Batman movies so that he could learn how to operate on a large-scale movie with an enormous set and all the trappings of a big-budget movie. Those movies were so fantastic yet they were just PRACTICE for him? Insane. Essentially everything he's been doing for the last 15 years has been working towards making Inception. And Inception is a brilliant movie. Brilliant. Ridiculous. The opening is marvelous. And while it's not perfect for every second of its run, the last 25 minutes of the movie are better maybe than any other 25 minutes stretch I've ever seen. That's not a joke. I'm honestly a little bit confused at how people can get lost in this movie. Yes I know it's a complex concept with multiple worlds and dreams-within-dreams, but it's often said in writing that if you (as the author) know the world you're describing, your readers will too, without fail. And I'm quite certain that Nolan knows his world. Backwards and forwards. And the fact that he doesn't present the "rules" of the world in a step-by-step manual is his way of thanking the audience for paying attention. You don't need a list of rules to be able to understand what's going on, he reveals them alongside the story so that everything flows together. The first time I saw this movie, I was in the midst of a fit of vomit and yet I found the story understandable. (Seriously, I threw up 10 minutes in and was fading from some bad dehydration. So I saw it again.)

It's at a point like this, after gushing about the movie, that I kind of want to say it's the best I've ever seen. But you know what? It probably isn't. Movies are inherently limited. Limited by the story itself, limited by their length, limited by the screen they're displayed on. Inception, at least to me, completely maxed out all of its limits. The story is fantastic--but it's not the best story ever written. It'll end up being one of my favorite movies ever, sure. But ONE OF. Not the single best. And that's okay. To appreciate and be utterly impressed by it is enough for me, I don't need to immediately place it on a pedestal just two weeks in. It could grow on me, or it could fade. Either way, it won't change the fact that it floored me--twice in a week.

When I left the theater, other than the inevitable "did the top fall or did it keep spinning" questions (by the way, SICK ending. Very slick. Nolan has mastered the art of the last shot.), the one major thought that was swirling in my head was, "Is this it? Is this the apex?" Nolan is in my opinion the best we have right now, and from everything I've read, this was the best he has. I'm quite certain he'll put out more brilliant movies, but will he ever be able to top this? I know what it's like to have ideas, to have ideas for stories that you want to build, you have THE ONE that's always at the top, always the ideal scenario, you're always tweaking, and then below that you have THE OTHERS. They're good, sure, and you love them, but they're not the one. And from what I've been hearing, this is the one for Nolan. Will he become satisfied? Will he move to be more experimental? It kind of makes me worry. It kind of makes me sad.

It's a bizarre feeling to leave a movie that thrilled you from start to finish and feel sad.

In a way, I kind of hope to feel it again.

I know this wasn't a true review of the film. But I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about something that was on my mind. And no review of the film will do it any justice. So just know that I suggest you go see it. And if you don't like it, that's okay. But it will be more than worth it for those of you who do.

#051 - I'm In A Contest! Vote For Me!

2010-07-21T20:39:00.001-04:00

So what if I copied this from the e-mail I sent out to just about everyone that reads this blog? I don't have time! I'm busy being in ridiculous online contests!

Hello all.

I've entered myself in this contest. It's kind of silly, but hey, if you win, you get a trip to Vegas. So... why not right?

Anyway, it's called Every Man Jack. It's some sort of male grooming products, like hair gel and aftershave and all that business. What, you've never heard of them? Well, me neither. But I stumbled across this contest and I figured I'd give it a shot.

You can vote for me to win on their website from now (July 21) to August 4th. Apparently you can vote once a day or something like that. Basically, it would be AWESOME if you could vote for me as often as possible between those dates. And if you could share this with people, that would be AWESOME as well. Because it costs you nothing, and it costs me nothing, and we can all bond together to screw over "the man" (or this company, either way).

Here's the link:

http://www.everymanjack.com/wanted/node/594/lightbox2?sms_ss=email

And if you get lost on the site, just go to www.everymanjack.com, click on gallery, search "Evan" and vote for me, not that crazy person next to me.

Thank you all greatly.

-Evan

#050 - LeBenedict Bronold?

2010-07-09T09:02:00.014-04:00

Err... whoops.

There's a bunch wrong with this photo, but there is one thing correct--and it has nothing to do with "Cleveland", "23", "Nike", or the ridiculous pose. We indeed are ALL witnesses, witnesses to one of the stupidest, most self-important, pain-inflicting debacles of all time.

LeBron built us all up, scheduled a hokey press conference, waffled more than kids with these spray cans, and finally produced one of the lamest "Decisions" I've experienced. The whole time leading up to the one-hour special, I was thinking to myself, "This means he has to be picking Cleveland, right?"--even though scheduling it in Connecticut was a bizarre way to throw people off the scent. I figured, if you're going to leave Cleveland, leave the fans and the city and the state that depends on you so dearly, you have to do it in a quiet, respectful manner. Shake Dan Gilbert's hand, issue a heartfelt statement to your fans (and maybe a couple of your teammates), and sign your new contract with Chicago.

...Um?

Miami, of course.

See, the way I saw it going in, the only legitimate options for LeBron were Cleveland and Chicago. New York is just a mess, it's a basketball nightmare and has been for the last 8 years, and even though they've cleaned out Isiah Thomas and some of the bench-surfing garbage that has festered there, it was still about as ass-backwards as you could get from an organizational standpoint. New Jersey was never as legit as people thought, playing up the Jay-Z connection, but they weren't going to be able to bring in any other talent except through the draft. The Clippers were a joke. And now that Miami had gone for broke with Bosh and Wade and a supporting cast of Porky Pig, Bill Murray and Newman, they were going to be out of the running because it didn't present LeBron the chance to spread his wings.

That left Cleveland and Chicago, which from a basketball standpoint was always the best decision. They had great young talent, a great market, always the chance to expand in the future with more money to spend than most, and was still in the same region for a guy who claimed to be so hometown-centric. But I still couldn't imagine him not saying Cleveland. He was the King in Cleveland in more ways than one. Dan Gilbert basically said, "You don't like Mike Brown? Fired. You don't like Danny Ferry? Fired. You want Shaq? Done. Oh now you want Shaq gone? Done, too." They catered to his every whim, which is not necessarily the reason why I thought he would pick them, but now that I've seen the things that REALLY seem to interest LeBron, I think their willingness to defer would have been a big selling point.

I guess there were a few reasons why I thought he was going to end up in Cleveland. One, which I'm a little ashamed to say, is just that I wanted him to. It was projecting a little. I felt like if I was him, I would go there. (Well, I would go to OKC, but that was never in the running.) I saw a guy who seemed to be in his element, and it seemed right for him to stay. Two, I didn't think he would hold a big Broadway show just to stab the Cleveland fans in the back so gruesomely. It's a kick in the face. And a kick in the pants. And everything else. All they had was LeBron and they gave him everything he wanted. The other teams would be fine if he announced he was re-upping. They never really HAD him so it wasn't like he was deserting them. But to hold a staged ordeal like that just to say, "Hey Cleveland, you're my home and I love you, but f*** off!" seemed too low.

Three, from a "legendary" standpoint, I think the reality is, being part of this modern triumvirate in Miami is going to nix any chance LeBron has at being labeled "the greatest ever". Plenty of guys have won rings in their careers, plenty of guys have won multiple rings in their careers. It's not just winning rings that makes you the best ever. It's being the best guy on the best team. That's what gets you there. Michael Jordan suffered for a long time before he got to the pinnacle. The Pistons whupped his butt for three straight years, they owned him. LeBron only lost twice to the Celtics. Could you imagine if Jordan had said, "You know what, screw it, I'm going to go play with the Pistons instead of losing to them."? It would have been insane. And we certainly would not be talking about Jordan the same way--he wouldn't be Jordan. He's Jordan because he said, "You know what, screw it, I'm going to get better, and come back here next year and kick your ass." And he did. LeBron doesn't understand this. He thinks, "Hey, I've proven that I can dominate the league, now all I need is a ring to settle it." That's not really how it works. You need to EARN a championship if you're at that level. Unfortunately for Ray Bourque, who toiled for two decades in Boston before jumping ship and winning in Colorado, he didn't EARN that championship. The Avs won it for him, and he got to celebrate, but winning that Cup will always be a little tarnished for him. Before yesterday, I thought LeBron was capable of winning himself. Honestly, I feel that if he had Pau Gasol as Kobe does, he could have won this year and last. You need a lieutenant, not some weird three-general formation. I just can't see his legacy being any greater than it already is after this move. It's a lose-lose. Either they'll win and everyone will say it was manufactured, like the Yankees or USC football, or they'll lose and it will be the laughing stock of the sports world for years.

Four, I was duped into thinking that the last seven years, LeBron was being genuine. All the goofy antics with his teammates and their handshakes and pregame routines, holding press conferences in Akron with his teammates around, I thought it was all genuine. He always had the look of a little kid living out his dream. But the reality of it, now, after seeing all of this, is that he's got a business model in mind--how he can make the most out of his "brand", which is a concept people have been spewing for years. And being a loveable goof seemed to go with that brand. Kobe had his thing--cold hearted assassin, generally unpleasant, but a winner. And Bron had his--great teammate, vicious physique, talented choreographer, hometown hero.

Uh... scratch that last part.

Surprisingly enough, one of the people who I feel has captured the right mindset of this whole decision has been Mo Williams, LeBron's former #2 in command, and current medium-sized fish in a very tiny pond. Check out some of his tweets. Of all the players, maybe second to Boobie Gibson, he seemed to truly be LeBron's friend, and he can thank him for the incredible boost in production he's received over the last couple seasons since joining Cleveland. But now he realizes the team is left without direction. And I can side with his sentiments. He understands why LeBron did what he did, why he left, but he's not really a big fan of how it was done, and he's left in the dust as a result of it. It's honest. And it's a lot more level-headed than Dan Gilbert, who left a ridiculously scathing note for Cleveland fans (if you haven't seen it yet) in a ridiculously silly font, just bashing LeBron right and left for his decision making. It was low, it was angry, and it probably was driven by a lot of factors that we, the public, didn't experience, for instance, what it was actually LIKE to deal with him (or NOT deal with him, as the case may be). Dan Gilbert made himself out to be a seven year old kid playing fantasy basketball, but he must have been very aware of how polarizing his statements would be. I admire that. I don't necessarily admire running your mouth like a spoiled brat, but hey, he knew some people would hate it, and he knew some people would love it. And I think he agreed with himself that he only cared about the people who were going to love it--namely CLEVELAND fans, not LEBRON fans. Good for him. He got his point across, he did what he wanted to do, I don't necessarily care for it and I'm not going to be his number one fan all of the sudden, but he had his agenda and he's sticking to it.

I can't tell if that last sentence was about Gilbert or LeBron.

Probably both.

I understand why LeBron did what he did. It's an interesting experiment to join three of the league's best young players together and recreate the fun of Team USA. But I don't think LeBron really thought through how it was going to impact his legacy. In the NBA, it's either your team, or it's not. Miami's not his team. At least not yet. But Cleveland was. And they would have done anything to keep it that way. Unfortunately that didn't seem to matter that much to him. Not as much as being able to play his role in this Hollywood production. I don't have the same personal stake in this thing as those in Ohio, but I used to root for this guy.

I'm certainly not going to anymore.

#049 - Envisioning the Hall

2010-06-16T13:27:00.006-04:00

In light of my recent post on Junior Griffey and his imminent bronzing in Cooperstown, and also in light of a recent article I read about Chipper Jones (link here) which I found to be unusually aggressive and iron-fisted, I wanted to start looking around the league and trying to determine what players currently suiting up will eventually mount their bodiless heads in the Hall of Fame.

At the beginning of the year, I read an article which claimed that this year was the first in over 15 seasons where we didn't start the season with a mortal-lock Hall of Fame starting pitcher. While it's quite obvious that Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera are already voted in (with 91% approval), I scoured team staffs to try and find and argument against this claim.

Turns out, he/she was right. (He or she, as in I don't remember, not that the writer's gender was questionable.) The closest thing we have is a bunch of guys who we project WILL end up as Hall of Famers, as long as they give it a couple more solid years. But let's face it, the time of the 300-game winner is probably gone, pitchers don't pitch long enough into games and don't get enough starts per year to get into that range, which would require one to average 20 wins a year for FIFTEEN YEARS to get there. Go back and look up how many pitchers won 20 games for just last year. Go ahead. None. Exactly. So to average 20? For that long? It's a fantasy. Guys will have to be evaluated on their performance versus their peers, which is fair, because baseball is a sport in which era matters greatly. Babe Ruth was downright immortal because he clubbed 714 home runs when nobody else had 400. Pedro Martinez's 1.74 ERA in 2000 was ludicrous because his closest competitors were in the 3.00s. And Brady Anderson's 50 home run season was insane--well, that is, until the Mitchell Report comes out.

Here we go.

SECTION 1: DONE AND DONE

These players have already accomplished enough in their careers that if it ended today, they'd make it to the Hall.

SP: Pedro Martinez. His run from 1997-2003 was godly: 118-36, 2.20 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 1761 K in 1408 IP

RP: Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera. You need longevity to make it as a relief pitcher. And you need to be consistently great to earn that longevity. Hoffman might be awful right now, but plenty of guys end their careers with clunkers.

C: Ivan Rodriguez. The greatest defensive catcher of his time, also not a bad offensive guy either.

1B: I don't think any. I'm not the world's foremost expert on who gets in the hall and who doesn't, but I'd say Todd Helton might be the closest, and he has largely underwhelming power numbers at a power position playing in a power ballpark. .326 lifetime average is pretty unreal, though. Thome is a real question mark. He hit a bunch of home runs but I'm not sure you could ever really call him a great player. Plus there's some steroid speculation with him.

2B: Probably none, again.

3B: Alex Rodriguez, for sure. Might be a little tarnished by the steroid scandal, but probably not enough. It wasn't as catastrophic as Bonds, and he benefited from coming late in the game and getting to see others ahead of him apologize quickly and be forgiven. The guy I was reading says Chipper Jones as well, which, I guess maybe does fit. 430 homers, .306 average. Those are pretty stellar. Plus a boatload of division titles (if that means anything). And one MVP award.

SS: Derek Jeter, which pains me to say. Very good chance for Omar Vizquel too, on the Ozzie Smith "Incomparable Defensively" reasoning--though technically I just compared both to each other. 2700 hits, too, though.

OF: Ken Griffey, Jr. (Come on.) Manny Ramirez. Headcase, and who knows where he landed on steroids, but he's one hell of a hitter. Oddly enough, I'm not sure anybody else really qualifies for this category. Well, possibly Vladimir Guerrero, the way he's playing this year.

SECTION 2: LOCK IT UP

These guys are about as good as gold when it comes to future Hall ballots, though they haven't exactly gotten there YET.

SP: Roy Halladay, Johan Santana, Andy Pettitte. It would help if Santana got to 200 wins and didn't divebomb in the next few years, but his pedigree is outstanding so far. People are saying Pettitte is for sure going to get in, and I think being a popular guy for the Yankees helps that.

RP: None. Maybe Billy Wagner? Closers are very new to the Hall, so I'm not sure how they value them so far.

C: Joe Mauer. How many batting titles will he win? All he needs to do is hit about .290 for the rest of his career and he's a dead-on lock.

1B: Albert Pujols. Seriously, he's almost in the "Done and Done" by now. Just inconceivable how good he is.

2B: Chase Utley. He's pretty much the best second baseman every year of his career. That has to earn you some mad props, and some high finishes in the MVP voting won't hurt.

3B: None that I can think of.

SS: None right now.

OF: Ichiro Suzuki. Don't sleep on his potential production. There's no reason he couldn't play til he is 40, and every year is another 200 hits for him, he could reasonably reach 3000 in less than 15 years of service. Already one of the 10 most efficient hitters of all time.

SECTION 3: PROJECTING

They're a long way aways, but I could totally foresee the future production of these guys resulting in a Hall-worthy career.

SP: Tim Lincecum, who already has two Cy Youngs. CC Sabathia. Roy Oswalt, only if he can regain form from a few years past. I'd love to say Felix Hernandez, who at 24 already has 63 wins, but he's a bit of a headcase and who knows how that will affect him. Stephen Strasburg--half kidding, but he's already disgustingly good.

RP: I'm not sure if closers will have the career longevity required to fit this bill. Possibly Francisco Rodriguez, but he's been very up and down. Closers seem to last about 3 seasons and then flame out, so it'll be hard to find others.

C: None.

1B: Ryan Howard could perhaps get there, with these filthy power numbers he continues to put up. Same could be said for Prince Fielder. Miguel Cabrera, though, tops both of them on consistent production so far, and he seems to only be getting better.

2B: Robinson Cano could win MVP this year. And if he secures some batting titles, like everyone has been predicting he will, he might get into range.

3B: Evan Longoria. It's VERY early for him. But let's hope he can keep it up.

SS: Hanley Ramirez. He's been the best shortstop in baseball for a few years, and at 26 is already 44th in Active Career WAR (wins above replacement). Very promising.

OF: It's all about sustained top-level production. There are plenty of great outfielders, but not enough of them are consistently in the top 3 at their position. A few more years down the road and this picture will come better into focus.

#048 - Farewell.

2010-06-03T09:51:00.010-04:00

Hard to believe this guy is now retired.

There are very few words I could use at this point to elucidate my feelings on George Kenneth Griffey, Jr. He's been my favorite athlete in any sport, for my whole life. In my Google profile picture, you might be able to notice that I'm wearing a Seattle Mariners sweatshirt. Who can they thank for that? Griffey. I once tried out for the reality show ESPN Dream Job where you compete to become a Sportscenter anchor. What play did I recall during my "Favorite Play-by-Play Memory"? Edgar's double down the line against the Yankees, scoring Griffey from first. Anytime I pick up a baseball bat, I can't help but rock my hips back and forth a bit, emulating his timeless pose. Unfortunately, I was only able to see him play in person three times, something I'm already greatly regretting. I had hoped to travel out to the Chicago and catch a couple last games of him with the Mariners in July, but as this news has broken, it's clear that's not going to happen.

It's sad to see him go.

It's sad to see him go like this. He's batting .184, no home runs, scant contribution and relegated to designated hitter (or designated walker, most appropriately). He never was chiseled, he was lean with a thick waist that would generate locomotive power. Now one might say he's a bit paunchy, his belt size a few notches bigger, father time taking his toll. His quickness has been sapped, moving from center field to right a few years ago. His fluid, picture-perfect swing has been drained of its speed, making him an easy mark for even middle of the road pitchers. It's not the way you envision it happening when you're 10 years old. You envision him standing up to bat, last game of the season, perched at 755 career home runs. Of course it would make sense to walk him, but in your head, there's no room on the bases. They've gotta pitch to him, even though it's obvious to everyone in the park what's going to happen. A mistake middle-in, and there's no doubt. He's carried around the bases by his teammates, his smile as brilliant as ever, his eyes lit up to show the little kid inside of him. Hank Aaron's at home plate to congratulate him. Carried off into the sunset.

That's how you want it to go down. That's how the story was written.

Written by all of us 10 year olds, glued to our sets as he homered in 8 straight games, leaping from our seats as he dismantles the Yankees with one of the all-time great performances, raising our fists as he turns in back to back 57 HR / 140 RBI seasons.

Covering our eyes as he crashes head first into walls.

Hanging our heads as he changes allegiances.

And welcoming him back with open arms.

The old legend has it that children, who are always said to be innocent, can cut right through all the bullshit facades and see you for who you really are. So it's no wonder schoolyards in the early 90s were packed with Griffey impersonators, littered with Mariners caps. Griffey was my first hero, as I'm sure he was for others. He jumped out at you as a guy you wanted to emulate, and for a change, parents had no problem with that. The same things that made him such a great player, wonderful teammate, and jubilant personality are the same things that bring him to today, his cleats hung up, his number on its way up the flagpole. Griffey never shied from the spotlight, but it's without question that his smiles were the brightest at the bottom of a mob of teammates.

In his statement to the team, he told his GM that he didn't want to be a distraction. He didn't want to hurt the team. He didn't want to take up a roster spot without providing anything in return. Being a good teammate has led him to being no teammate at all. But the parallels don't end there. In his prime, he was explosive and fearless, crashed into walls, laid himself out onto the Kingdome turf, piled up injury after injury, ripped his hamstrings from the bone. He always impressed with his grace and fluidity, and the years of bodily harm added up. Being such a fantastic player for so long ended up doing him in. Physically, he's not the same. He had a long swing, one that is etched into my brain as history's prettiest home run producer, but old age unmasked giant holes in it. Genuine old age. Natural old age. If there's anything you can say about Junior, it's that he was genuine. He comes out with his true feelings, whether it's pure joy as he cranks a homer, disappointment as his team falls short year after year, or the sadness of accepting his declining skills and bowing out. He foolishly thought you could get an edge by being a good guy. While all his contemporaries turned to the needle (or "flaxseed oil") and debuted bulging muscles and screaming line drives late into their 30s, Griffey let the game go naturally. His weight went to his hips. His fly balls started dying at the track. Once destined to barrel through Aaron's 755 barrier, Griffey limped across the line with 630 home runs. To 99.99999% of people, 630 homers is unreal. But for Griffey, there's always going to be a lingering "what if?" in the back of everyone's heads. He's almost unfairly being criticized because he didn't reach the lofty goals that were set for him. While it's humbling to get to this point and have to accept that Griffey wasn't going to be the one to break all those records, I don't think it should diminish what he was able to accomplish at all. If anything, it should just stand to commend Hank Aaron on what a machine he was. From ages 31-36, Griffey played in 554 games and hit 125 homers, as compared to Hammerin' Hank, who played in an astonishing 920 games and hit 226 home runs. Junior just couldn't stay healthy when he hit the wrong side of 30, and too many people are going to slight him based on the games he missed as opposed to the games he played. He still hit 630 home runs. He still drove in 1836 runs. He still accumulated 2781 hits. Those numbers are dumbfounding. Especially when you add to it an MVP award, 13 all-star appearances and 10 gold gloves. In 1998 he was already a first-ballot Hall of Famer. What is he now?

Now, he's the owner of one of the most incredible resumes ever seen in any Ken James or SABR anthology. He's the curator of the league's Jackie Robinson Day, coming up with the idea that he wanted to honor Jackie's memory by wearing his number one day a year--just his number, without a name. He's the savior of one franchise, one that was in physical and financial ruin before he came along and starting tearing the cover off the ball. He's a family man, something we saw as early as 1990 playing side-by-side (and homering back-to-back) with his father, Ken Sr. It's something we've witnessed throughout the years playing with his kids (sometimes to his detriment) on the ballfield, just as he did when he was a kid. And it's something he's struggled with this year, having to spend long stretches of games away from his family. He's a prankster, known for his clubhouse gags and for coming in and lightening the mood of a downtrodden Seattle team on the verge of pushing away its franchise player in 2009. He's the force behind a tiny plaque on the wall of the B&O Warehouse at Camden Yards, a tribute to his mammoth blast during the 1993 Home Run Derby. He's the star of one of the most impressive highlight reels in all of sports, one that I'll enjoy watching again and again until the day I die. He's a legend, but even more than that, he's a person.

I think it'll take some more time for people to truly appreciate Griffey for the player that he was. Playing in the steroid era cost him. It cost him home run titles, MVPs, and his place in history. Of his generation, he'll be joined in the 600 home run club by Sosa, Bonds, and A-Rod. The catch? Those three have been under constant steroid suspicion, whether it be rumors, grand jury testimony, or failed drug tests. Griffey? Clean. In fact, I've stated on many occasions, that if he's ever found out to NOT be clean, I think it will officially end my relationship with baseball altogether. I can't face that. Luckily, I doubt I will ever have to. But once all the dust settles from this tarnished period of the game, the players will likely be dumped into two categories: those who did, and those who didn't. For all his achievements, I can say without hesitation that Griffey will stand at the front of the steroid-free class, and rightfully take his place in baseball history with Aaron, with Mays, with Clemente--not above or below them, but alongside them.

Maybe it makes no difference to you, but to me, baseball won't be the same without him.

(Thanks to user rkuehn24 for this video. It's fantastic.)

#047 - Joe Camel, eat your heart out.

2010-06-01T13:22:00.004-04:00

Want to see something that is beyond wrong? Like, that will astonish you in every way possible, potentially to the point that your head will just explode and leave gooey debris all over your computer screen? Nice. I have just the thing:

(Video courtesy of Reuters. Not like they gave me permission or anything.)

This brings to mind so many questions. So, so many questions. But I'm not even sure where to start. Here goes--how does this even get filmed? How does someone hear about this, and have their first thought be, "Hey, let's take video of this for a new service!" and not, "Holy crap! This needs to stop!"? Seriously, this is absurd. I've never smoked, and am pretty much against it on all counts, so naturally I'm a biased observer, but I can at least admit that adults, when given the choice, sometimes choose to become addicted to this product, so there must be some benefit. But children? This kid looks about 15 pounds overweight to begin with, which is horrible, but add to it the endless list of life-enhancing health benefits of smoking, and I'm pretty sure he'll live only long enough to grow his first facial hair--a very thin, patchy mustache. And considering he'll stunt his growth at 3 feet 5 inches tall, he'll be one of the creepiest looking beings on the planet. But at least his voice will be nice and raspy, if he can even talk at all, so he has a future in radio.

I fear for his life. And the lives of everyone in his town. Because honestly, the more I watch this video, he looks totally badass. And reminds me a little bit of Oddjob. Okay, I'm a bad person.

#046 - Brutal? Yes. Deserved? Probably.

2010-05-25T12:31:00.003-04:00

Now, I don't advocate animal killing, nor do I advocate human killing, but I randomly came across this picture and was instantly mind-warped.

If you're interested to know, the bullfighter did survive the attack. I'm not sure if the bull did, however, as my friend Dan and I were just commenting that there's an almost 0% chance the bull would make it out alive after something like that, which makes bullfighting--already a ridiculous event--simply unfair on all grounds. I countered with the argument that at least bulls can dish out the punishment, unlike in a similar dog-fighting scenario (or cock-fighting or snake-fighting or whatever sick animal quarreling you spend your free time on).

As much as I am physically pained by the photo, I think the reality is that this dude had it coming. If you step into the ring with a beast that outweighs you by two thousand pounds, and you intentionally provoke this creature--well, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. Luckily for him, his wounds were treatable and he'll suffer major but not life-threatening injuries.

For more information, including a video (which I haven't watched, and I don't suggest you do), follow this link: http://sportsbybrooks.com/photo-bullfighter-gored-in-neck-through-mouth-28405

#045 - The Last Cavs Fan on Earth Applies for Gun License

2010-05-14T11:33:00.005-04:00

The mistake by the lake. The stink by the drink. The bleary by the Erie. The list goes on. Sources tell me that Cleveland has had some trouble with its professional sports teams recently. And what we experienced last night in a tiny New England town called Boston was no different, and to some people, no surprise at all.

Don't count me among those people. I was honestly surprised, and taken aback, and any number of synonyms for the concept. Here's a team that's been the best team in the league all season, has shown that it has a second and third gear to just shut teams down and obliterate their hopes, with the best basketball player on the planet, and they went down unceremoniously to a bunch of 35 year olds and a point guard with enormous hands. I honestly was surprised. I thought the Cavs would make a game of it, come out stomping on faces and send it back to a game seven in Cleveland, swiping back all the momentum and chest-beating bravado of the series. Instead, what transpired was one of the most indescribable tail-between-the-legs efforts you're ever likely to see in the playoffs.

By all accounts, the Cavs played hard in the first half. They came out with some purpose, had some good plays going, got some baskets, and Mo Williams finally was able to turn off the cruise control (damn Toyota) and play some crunch-time basketball. Then came halftime. Something happened at halftime. Either Don Vito Corleone strolled into the locker room and made the Cavs an offer they couldn't refuse, or Lebron was attacked by a rabid fan and stabbed in the elbow, or Knicks president Donnie Walsh sent them "complimentary" bottles of Gatorade laced with Valium. Their fire disappeared. Antawn Jamison channeled Antoine Walker and missed every shot he took. Shaq channeled George Burns. Mo Williams channeled Mo Williams, circa last week. The Celtics played well, well enough to win, but in my opinion, not well enough to beat the best team in the league. At times they appeared as if they couldn't believe how easy they were having it. All they had to do was stand still and Lebron would fumble the ball. Or relax on Williams as he missed another jumper. They'd get the ball on offense and sit on it, certainly thinking to themselves, "Whatever funk Cleveland is in won't last long, so we've got to milk this now."

Only the funk basically lasted the whole game. Only for a short moment did the Cavs show life, when Lebron hit back to back three pointers to cut the deficit to 4. But even thinking back on that, it was almost dumb luck, I mean he hit two jump shots, he could have missed two jump shots, from a gameplan standpoint it was nothing extraordinary. The Cavs just seemed to bail. ("When life hands you lemons, I say, f*** the lemons, and bail.") And for once I don't mean "wake up in the morning and see they lost and claim they bailed", I mean, if you watched the game, you literally thought to yourself, "What the HELL are they doing out there?" I'm leaning more towards the Donnie Walsh "gift" mentioned above--it seemed like Lebron was fighting off a bad haze. He could snap out of it for only moments at a time, but then would get caught right back up in it, like Jordan during tv timeouts of The Flu Game, only this was during gameplay. And forget the other players on the Cavs. They might as well have not existed, with the exception of Anderson Varejao, who, to his credit, constantly works hard and is one of the only players on court who seemed to recognize that his season was about to end. As an example, here's a photo of Lebron (courtesy of ESPN.com) toward the end of the fourth quarter:

"Oh, gosh, huh, well, I guess we're going to lose." Now, maybe I'm not fair, and maybe I'm being irrationally angry towards him, but you know what? If there's ONE thing people appreciate from athletes--the athletes who make millions of dollars a year to play a game that we can watch--it's giving your all. And I might really be treating him unfairly, since, after all, you can look at his box score and say, "He put up 27-19-10, how is that not giving his all?" Well, I watched. And yeah, he played hard for a good portion of the game, which is more than I can say for most of his teammates, and he even put on a superhuman display of rebounding to start the fourth quarter (check out this portion of the play-by-play:

But as soon as that flurry ended, it turned into a great display of tall men looking around and shrugging their shoulders. They gave up. And it angered me. Like, really, really angered me. I'm not a big Cavs fan or anything--I like them, I want to see them succeed (probably partially because they have yet to), and they're my de facto Eastern Conference rooting interest while the Suns and Thunder toil with the Lakers out West. But I feel kind of betrayed having rooted for them to win that series. They didn't seem to really want to do it themselves, so why should I have wanted it for them? Professional athletes talk a lot of big game about "team" and "championships" and "that's the only thing that matters", but the last five minutes of last night's game were those minutes that you want to shield little kids from forever. (You don't want to have to look into their eyes and answer the question, "But why are they giving up?") It left me with a sick feeling, like maybe there was something bigger at work, like maybe these guys are such good showmen that they've tricked everyone into thinking that they cared. The announcers even pin-pointed that fact during the game, with about 4 minutes left. They said, "The Cavs have been doing the dancing/laughing/joking act all season long, that's who they are, that's how they present themselves as teammates, why don't you keep that going now? If you're going to do that when you're winning, then you have to do that when you're losing as well." And the point was not that they should be dancing or laughing as their season came to an end, but that they should be losing together. With about 3 minutes left, the Cavaliers seemingly decided by way of osmosis that they were done, they stopped attacking on offense, they stopped boxing out, the poked aimlessly at balls trying to get easy steals but no longer moved their feet on defense. I've seen the act hundreds of times playing pickup ball--a team gets down in a hole, maybe they get down to game point, and unless the deficit is only a couple of points, they just sort of resign themselves to their fate. Well, to me, that's okay in the regular season, or in pickup ball, or the All-Star game, whatever. Don't risk injury for a 10% chance of winning. It's not worth it, in the economic sense. But it was an elimination game. If they sat down and rolled over, they'd have a 0% chance of forcing a Game 7, a 0% chance of advancing, a 0% chance of winning a championship--the thing they all claimed they wanted so badly. Why not go into full panic mode? Why not try to swarm on defense, go for steals, trap players, attack the basket, play at 200 MPH? At least that way you have a CHANCE of winning. You might end up exhausting yourselves or giving up easy buckets, but at that stage in time, it doesn't make a difference, you'd lose anyway. At the very least you'd make the Celtics work for it, and besides Ray Allen, their shooters were struggling from the free throw line.

I just didn't understand.

This was the same Lebron who scored the last 25 points for his team against Detroit in that Game 5 masterpiece? This was the same Lebron who exploded on the Bulls in the first round? The same Lebron who seemed to outduel Kobe in every regular season matchup in his career? Didn't seem like it. As much as you can say he was being childish after last year's season ending storm-off-the-court incident versus Orlando, looking back, I'd almost prefer that to this year. He was PISSED OFF. And rightly so. He put up triple doubles all over that series, a one-man wrecking crew, but still the Magic had answers at every other position. He left his mark as a man who was not satisfied. This year, he hugged all the opponents, barely acknowledged his teammates, and walked off as if it was February. If you're a die-hard Cavs fan, you know what? You'd probably take last year's reaction 10 times out of 10. And that highlights a big point of the athlete-fan relationship. The fan is almost never satisfied. Sometimes that's patently unfair. But sometimes, every once in a while, it's deserved.

There's so much speculation about Lebron's future and where is he going and how much will his movement impact the league. Well, that's all well and good when it gets here, but for now, all we have is the results of what happened. It's hard to imagine, given the media attention showered on this loss, that there are still two more rounds of playoffs to go. I admire the four teams who got there, they've really played their asses off and earned it (even though the Magic advanced by beating a Hawks team that was even LESS inspired than the Cavs were last night), but some of the games I've seen this postseason make me think that there should be some changes in the way the league is organized.

Pundits have argued back and forth about how teams should be penalized for tanking during the regular season to get higher draft picks, but to me, there's a pretty simple solution--players should be paid per win. Not entirely, of course, but there should definitely be some incentive there. Agents and players would never agree to this of course, and after all, what is basketball without the players? But you can't tell me you wouldn't see a better brand of basketball if players' paychecks depended on it.

Imagine this: the league and its teams only have a certain amount of money, M, to go around. No matter what happens, they're not going to mysteriously misplace or obtain a giant sum of money to be applied to players' salaries. It's pretty much known well before the season starts. So why not take 40% of that money and stash it in a separate pool. Players salaries are fixed at a minimum of 60% of what their face value is. You sign a contract for $10 million a year? Good, you're going to get $6 million of it, even if your team loses every game. Then, you take the remaining 40% of the salaries, divide each team's stash into 82 games, and then before each game, the teams ante it into a winner's purse. Let's say the Cavs have a yearly salary of $70 million and the Bulls $60 million. 40% x $70M = $28M / 82 G = $341,400 per game. The Bulls, likewise, have 40% x $60M = $24M / 82 G = $292,700 per game to offer. So when they play each other, $634,100 is at stake between them. If Bulls win, their players win back their team's contribution, divided in a proportional manner according to the players' contracts (i.e. if Derrick Rose is making 10% of his team's salary, he'll get 10% of the winnings), and the money earned from the Cavaliers would be split in two--half of the money is distributed according to that same proportional breakdown, and the other half is split evenly between the players who suited up. That way, if you're injured, you can still make back the money you "deserve" if your team wins, but there's an additional bonus awarded to players who suit up, albeit only half of the opponent's stake. And you can apply the same strategy to the postseason. That way, players won't have to lie anymore and tell us it's all about the championships. They'll really mean it. 16 more possible game checks? Yes, please. They'll play for that money, for sure.

It would be nice if it didn't have to come down to that, but from what I've seen this year, the players seem to have grown disinterested with the carrots that are already in front of them. They need new carrots, different carrots. They need the carrots they already have to be taken away. You can show a dog a toy, and he may or may not be interested. But if you take a toy from a dog's mouth, tell me he isn't going to fight you for it. The potential upside to this? Maybe games between the Wizards and Nets become heated affairs. Maybe players play out of their minds, maybe more fans come into see that, maybe the league generates some more buzz, some more revenue, and isn't that what everyone wants--revenue?

Who knows. I'm no expert, I know relatively little about the workings of the league's business, and I'm positive that this type of scenario would never play itself out in any major sport. But it's fun to speculate.

#044 - Iron Man 2 (2010)

2010-05-12T12:36:00.006-04:00

Director: Jon Favreau
Writer: Justin Theroux
Runtime: 124 min.

Iron Man, the first, was by all accounts a blast, heavy on the repartee and CGI demolition, and established Robert Downey Jr. as the most likeable and fun super-/anti-hero and screen presence to date. I didn't think it was perfect and I didn't really understand people claiming it was the best comic book movie ever, but it was definitely a fun ride and had all the necessary elements.

Iron Man 2 picks up where that one left off to a great extent. Downey is once again a riot on screen, he talks so fast and has such a captivating persona--it's kind of hard to envision the divide between Downey, Stark, and Stark's ultra-ego. It all just blends. The movie is nothing without him, and his awareness of his importance is evident, as it bleeds over into the character--a character who sits in front of the United States government and tells it to bugger off, essentially, "You can't touch me because you need me too bad." It's believable, it follows accordingly from the actions of the first film, and it's one of the few not-excruciatingly-obvious plot devices for the rest of the film. Tony's narcissism is going to come back and bite him in the ass. It's clear, but it's his character.

The setup, I think, is fantastic. Mickey Rourke wastes no time making his presence felt as Ivan Vanko, the supposed villain of the story. In fact, I think his grand entrance is probably the best scene of the movie, even though it's ridiculous on so many levels (the rest of the drivers would continue to race even though cars are being blown up left and right? Isn't that why you have crew chiefs?). Rourke is pretty good. I was concerned his Russian accent was going to be garbage from the trailer, but it actually wasn't too bad--maybe because they limited him to only a handful of lines. But he was quite badass and a freaking genius to boot--which is actually one of the things I thought was problematic about the movie. Sure, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is obviously the main villain. He wants to take down Stark and make him look like a little girl (in a little dress, little saddleshoes, little pigtails) at any cost, even though it seems like his villainy is forced. But that's besides the point. He's hateable. It makes sense. Vanko, though, isn't really hateable at all. His gripe with Stark is kind of legit (Stark's father banished Vanko's father to Russia after the two had been partners) and they only really address it with one line of dialogue, but in a rush to do everything else they're trying to do, don't really come back to it. So all we see is Vanko as a one-man wrecking crew, totally dismantling Hammer's entire software mainframe and fleet of drone soldiers. And he makes himself a kickin' Iron Man replica, complete with wickedly awesome electric tentacles (alright, I'm not sure how to describe it, but you know what I'm talking about). He's not even really that evil. He's just brilliant. He made all of his stuff without the resources of Stark, all on his own in this tiny shack in a frozen Russian town, and yet was able to compete. That gets more thumbs up than thumbs down in my book.

Most of that is forgivable, though. I think Favreau (and maybe more important, the Marvel suits behind the financing) had a bigger agenda--trying to cram all this Avengers stuff into the plot, trying to fit in a few too many plot points (Rhodes fighting Tony and stealing the War Machine suit is maybe the weakest moment in the movie, and ideally would have been skipped--but they needed to facilitate the War Machine storyline somehow) and the end result was a long movie with a million events happening inside of it. So you can't blame them for everything. The fight scenes were still cool, Iron Man zipped across the screen with as much flair as ever (even though I think they upped the CGI ante a little too much, everything was like the computers from Minority Report and Tony carries Iron Man around inside a briefcase), and most importantly, the characters were well done and had terrific interactions. That, I think, is the hallmark of the Iron Man movies--viciously quick banter between Stark and others, especially Pepper, that makes the movie a lot more fun and natural than other comic book films with hackneyed one-liners. That feature remains intact. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Scarlett Johansson as Natalie/Natasha/Black Widow, who plays the part of sexy assistant quite dashingly, and then blows everyone's doors off when she whips into high gear (and a leather catsuit). Seriously, good for her. I think she'll just pull out a reel of this movie the next time some online gossip columnist rags on her for being thick in the thighs. All good, all the time.

The part I found to be not-so-all-good? Blah. The end. I think some other people out there have commented on the quick and painless nature of the final fight sequence, but it really was kind of a letdown for me. As devastating as Vanko was in the first encounter--quite nearly killing Stark--he came back with an even more powerful suit at the end, but was dismissed quite effortlessly. And the scene only took about 40 seconds. This was disappointing, and was not too different than how I felt about the ending of the first movie. The final victories just seem to come too easily for Iron Man. And when you've sifted through all the wheelings and dealings of the first 115 minutes, what would have really driven the stake home would have been a killer final battle--only the movie ended up going out with a whimper. And that's a shame, because based on the first matchup, it could have been a doozy.

#043 - 20 Questions on the MLB

2010-05-07T14:00:00.004-04:00

The latest issue of ESPN The Magazine includes a feature on questionnaire results from 100 big leaguers (all answering anonymously, of course). I browsed the results and this is what I came up with:
(Note: About halfway through, I realized this post was dreadfully boring. Enjoy!)

1. The Best Player
Their answer: Albert Pujols 58%; Joe Mauer 21%
My take: Well, come on now, are you really going to argue with The Machine? Pujols. If there was one guy you wanted to plug into your lineup day in and day out, it'd be Pujols. And additionally, if there was one guy you needed to come through with a big hit in a clutch situation, it'd also be Pujols. (Just ask Brad Lidge.) You might be thinking to yourself, "Well, duh, those two are pretty much the same thing." But the reality is, they're not the same, and if you need any more proof, just look at Alex Rodriguez, 2001-2008.

1B. The Most Overrated
Their answer: Joba Chamberlain 17%; Alex Rodriguez 9%
My take: Yankees took home 4 of this poll's 5 top spots, which is not really a surprise. My gut reaction is to say a bunch of guys who, as it turns out, actually aren't really overrated anymore, because they've underperformed for a couple of years (David Ortiz, Alfonso Soriano). Chamberlain is a pretty good pick, I mean he's got this whole "Joba Rules" thing named after him and he's barely made a dent in the MLB surface. In no particular order: Francisco Rodriguez, Jose Reyes, Chamberlain, Josh Beckett, Rich Harden.

2. Which City has the Best Groupies?
Their answer: Chicago 21%; San Diego 9%
My take: I have absolutely no way of knowing how to approach this question. If so many of them say Chicago, then, sure, Chicago. However, if you want to talk about the percentage of a city's female population who would unabashedly jump the bones of a team's star player, then New York and Philadelphia have to be pretty high (just count the number of pink Derek Jeter or Chase Utley shirts next time you're at a game).

2B. Which City has the Worst Groupies?
Their answer: Oakland 14%; Cleveland 11%
My take: Come on, don't kid yourself, those were the first two cities to pop into your head, too.

3. How Many Games Should Teams Play?
Their answer: 162 57%; 150 10%
My take: Do we really need 162 games to figure these things out? (Someone points out the AL Central has been decided by a tiebreaking 163rd game each of the last two years.) That aside, I really don't think there's any value to having that many games. It's absurd. America's best league, the NFL, plays a 16-game schedule, 20 including playoffs. The only reason baseball needs to stick at 162 is because it has always used that amount, and it generates more profits for teams and gives players more games to accumulate stats. As a fan, I could live with a cut back to 120. That way World Series games won't be played in November in 35 degree weather.

4. Who will Win the World Series?
Their answer: Yankees 38%; Phillies 19%
My take: Players named the Mariners tied for third with 9%. Come on you silly players, get real. Tampa Bay over St. Louis in 6.

5. How Many Players Still Take PEDS?
Their answer: 0 per team 37%; 1 per team 19%
My take: Judging by the fact that 13% of respondents answered "No Comment", I'm willing to bet the number is above 0. Maybe 5-10% of the league is still doing it. So like, 2 guys per team.

6. Which Pitcher has the Nastiest Stuff?
Their answer: Roy Halladay 40%; Tim Lincecum 21%
My take: Ubaldo Jimenez was nowhere to be found in these results, which is a crime. Maybe not THE nastiest, but come on, he's nastier than Josh Beckett. Alas, I must remain true to my overwhelming bias: Felix Hernandez, Tim Lincecum, Ubaldo Jimenez, in that order.

7. What is the Best Franchise?
Their answer: New York Yankees 52%; Boston Red Sox 16%
My take: How is this measured? McDonald's is the biggest chain in the world, does that mean it's the best restaurant or has the best burgers? Come on. I think this answer should incorporate loyalty to fans and loyalty to players. My answer would probably be the Cardinals. It just seems like everyone loves each other there.

7B. Worst Franchise?
Their answer: Pittsburgh Pirates 23%; Kansas City Royals 18%
My take: The Pirates are a mess and trade away just about every likeable player they develop.

8. How Many Players Cheat on Their Wives?
Their answer: Half 9%; One Quarter 8%
My take: I have no idea. If you're a professional athlete and like messing around, why would you get married in the first place? I'll split the difference and say a third.

9. Should Barry Bonds be in the Hall of Fame?
Their answer: Yes 67%; No 29%
My take: The guy is an asshole and I think the overwhelming evidence points to his guilt in the steroid scandal. It's a shame, because he probably could have made it without it. His case is a little different than McGwire's. I don't want him to be in, but I think he should be. McGwire, however, shouldn't.

10. Would You Prefer a World Series or MVP?
Their answer: World Series 87%
My take: Depends. If you're a journeyman throw in on a World Series team, like Nick Swisher of the Yankees, then I think it means less. Baseball, moreso than any other sport, is individual. You can't really make your teammates better. You hit in your slot, you field in your position. Two guys win the MVP each year. 40 win a World Series. Really, the answer is the Hall of Fame, but it's not an option here. There's this weird rule surrounding every sport that says you have to want team success more than personal success. I don't know why that is really. You are guaranteed to EARN every MVP you win. Not true with a championship.

11. Do Language Barriers Affect Play?
Their answer: Yes 9%; No 91%
My take: I have no idea. I'll say yes if it's Pitcher-Catcher. No otherwise.

12. Most Overrated Stat?
Their answer: Batting Average 16%; ERA 13%
My take: ERA, really? It's probably the single most illustrative stat of a pitcher's effectiveness. I'm going to have to say Home Runs. It tells such a tiny piece of the picture. For pitchers, though, it's gotta be Win-Loss. Just ask Zack Greinke.

12B. Most Underrated?
Their answer: On Base Percentage 14%; Runs, WHIP 10%
My take: Outside of all the newfangled sabermetric stats like Wins Above Replacement, it's probably OPS (On Base Plus Slugging Percentage). It should just replace Batting Average now. There's a reason Albert Pujols pretty much always leads the league in OPS. That reason is Question #1.

13. How Good of a Commissioner is Bud Selig?
Their answer: B 30%; C 24%
My take: It's hard to say. He just kind of always seems like he has no idea what he's doing. But it has to be an incredibly challenging job. I haven't experienced any other commissioners in my lifetime, so I have no comparison. I'll give him a B-.

14. Do People Try to Get Betting Info from You?
Their answer: No 88%; Yes 8%
My take: Yes, but they probably shouldn't, and they wouldn't if they could see my account summary. Egads.

15. DH or No DH?
Their answer: No DH 55%; DH 45%
My take: Either way it should be uniform. None of this one league has DH one doesn't bull. Imagine if the NFC allowed you to have a player to specialize in kicking (aka a kicker) and the AFC didn't. It's absurd. Pick one or the other. The DH is more modern and catered to the fans, but I would prefer to see them eliminate the DH. Pitchers are often times the best hitters on the team in high school and college.

16. Who is the Best Manager?
Their answer: Bobby Cox 23%; Mike Scioscia 16%
My take: Joe Maddon, Tampa Bay. I love that guy. He's not full of himself, he's able to handle all the young kids they have on the roster, and he's got those stylish black frame glasses.

16B. Last Manager You'd Play for?
Their answer: Ozzie Guillen 30%; Lou Piniella 29%
My take: Hard to say. Ozzie is a nutcase, but he seems to protect his players. I'd say Dusty Baker probably. His history of destroying young talent is unmatched.

17. How Much Time Do You Spending Scoping Women in the Crowd?
Their answer: 5 minutes 16%; 0 minutes 14%
My take: 0 minutes? Come on buddy, who are you kidding? It all depends on where you are, what the weather is like, and what position you play. If you play shortstop or catcher, forget about it. If you're a left fielder? 20 minutes a game. Easy. If you're a left fielder and Tim Lincecum is pitching? An hour and a half.

18. Do You Own a Gun?
Their answer: No 56%; Yes 44%
My take: No. And this answer saddens me a little bit. To be fair, they didn't clarify what kind of gun. And I'm pretty sure Dustin Pedroia's answer was: "A gun? Heck no buddy. (Shows biceps) I'm certified to handle these two lethal weapons."

19. What Would the Reaction be to a Gay Teammate?
Their answer: Middle-of-the-road 19%; Apocalyptic 8%
My take: From the above question on guns, it's clear that baseball players are a little more on the conservative side than most. Ideally, the reaction would just be to support it and not make him feel like an outcast. But that's ideal. It probably varies city to city, player to player. But I get the feeling that teams aren't as closely knit as they used to be. So it wouldn't be like your trust was betrayed as much as it would have been in years past.

20. Who is the Last Guy You'd Fight on the Field?
Their answer: Kyle Farnsworth 23%; Carlos Zambrano 14%
My take: From what I've read, Farnsworth is one bad ass dude. But he seems like a caricature of a bad ass dude. Barb wire tattoos, Rick Wild Thing Vaughn glasses, a penchant for taking his shirt off. Elijah Dukes received 7% of the vote in this case. And I think if there was one guy who I'd be extra nice to, it'd probably be him. His father was convicted of second degree murder when he was 12 years old, and in no shortage of situations have his anger problems hurt him, both on field and off, resulting in a handful of suspensions and a general level of distrust from front offices.

#042 - Where to Land on Arizona?

2010-05-05T09:42:00.003-04:00

The speculation and public outcry regarding Arizona's questionable new bill has reached critical mass. Just about every news outlet is covering it about 6 hours a day, and celebrities, athletes, tweeters, politicians, foreigners, Democrats, Republicans, and nobodies have been chiming in with their two cents about the recent decision. Frankly, I'm not sure how to feel. I'm also quite worried that not being sure immediately paints me as insensitive and race-biased. It seems like the overwhelming answer (especially for someone of my loose political ideals) is that this new law is wrong, wrong, wrong, and fringes on alienating people's civil liberties. It seems like what I should be doing is slamming this bill for all its worth.

But the more I think about it, the more I really don't think there IS a right answer. At least not right now. I watched an interview the other day with a local Arizona sheriff and a California state politician, and besides the fact that neither of them really addressed what the other person was saying, it seemed like only the sheriff had the clear cut intention of trying to tackle the problem. The politician said things like, "This is wrong, it's unconstitutional, and what we need to do is sit down and talk about a better way to approach the problem." I'm not saying he's wrong, but that response is one that I've really grown tired of over the years. When one side doesn't like the the solution the other side has come up with, instead of coming up with a solution of their own, their response is usually, "Let's sit down and really talk about this." Do you think the Arizona state senate didn't TALK about it? Do you think they didn't spend hours and days and weeks contemplating different proposals, trying to figure out how to deal with the problem? Of course they would love it if they could have ten thousand armed guards standing along the border protecting the country. It's just not possible. And everyone has admitted this, they've said point blank, the only reason they had to find themselves in this unenviable position is because the federal government hasn't provided them with any of the solutions they sought. While a lot of people don't appreciate what they've decided to do, and would prefer to get this going in some real serious Congressional debate, think of it this way--schools in bad neighborhoods constantly have issues with students bringing weapons to school. They need a solution, they need a long-term solution to this problem. But how long could that take? Months? Years? Right now, the first thing they can do is set up metal detectors and search the students on the way in. Sure, not every student is carrying a weapon. In fact, a huge percentage of them are not. But would you rather them let the students continue to do what they're doing until that long-term solution is established? No. Hell no. What you do is put those metal detectors up and get cracking right away on that long-term solution. You certainly don't want the short-term solution to be the long-term one. It's ugly, it slows things down, it stops people from doing other things that they should be doing, and it hinders the freedom of the 95% of people who aren't the cause of the problems. But right now? Imagine the following scenario:

1) Guard stops Student A and checks his bag. Finds nothing. Student A annoyed. Guard stops Student B and checks his bag, finds knife. Student B is detained.

2) Student A and Student B go into school undeterred. In the bathroom, Student B pulls knife on Student A.

It's not too hard to make the connection from that to:

1) Officer stops Worker A and asks for identification. Worker A produces state ID. Guard stops Worker B and asks for identification. Worker B can't produce legal documentation. Worker B is detained.

2) Worker A and Worker B both attend work undeterred. Worker B works for uncompetitive wages and Worker A loses out as a result.

Obviously, in both these scenarios, option 1 is not the ideal long-term solution. There needs to be a change in culture. Businesses (especially farms and blue-collar industries that are hiring illegal immigrants) need to be punished for practices that appeal to illegal workers. But those laws are already on the books. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to figure out a way to prevent employers from undercutting their legal workers with illegal ones.

The part that's hard to address is the issue of profiling. As much as you can say that the officers won't employ profiling techniques (which is a new amendment they've added to the bill), the reality is it's going to happen. White guy in suit and tie sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Probably not going to ID him. Hispanic guy in jeans and workboots sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Hmmm... I know that that's unfair, and for legal Hispanic residents who have worked their asses off to come to this country and stay here, it's going to be a pain in the ass. They're going to be subjected to the same constant scrutiny that Middle Eastern descendants are subjected to at airports. What I'm sincerely hoping is that it's not nearly as intrusive, or assumptive. I think what the state has announced to its residents is that it wants everyone to be able to provide documentation of their legal status, to be ready to do that. They should absolutely not let this new law be interpreted as freedom to search and seize whatever they please. That's the WRONG approach. The more reasonable one? "Hey, there are a bunch of guys waiting on a corner to go out to the fields and work, maybe I'll just stop and ask them for ID."

Sadly, I know I'm being naive and idealistic when I think that maybe things will go in this nice, clean-cut way. I realize you're going to get all kinds of police intimidation across the board, and many times they will probably use their position to leverage things out of civilians (even legal citizens) in an underhanded manner. You kind of have to accept that in any circumstance where police officers are given an extra bump in power. And most likely it's going to end up hurting the Hispanic residents of the state, even the ones who have been there just as long if not longer than most white people. And there are ways, I think, to make it a little more even across the board, and to limit the direct influence of profiling on the state citizens. If they're serious about making this identification law stick, they could apply it to certain events that people might commonly do--for instance, at certain transactions, you must provide proof of legal residency. Driver's license, state ID, passport, whatever. At every point of sale for liquor or tobacco, maybe. Why not? You're already supposed to to prove your age, why not start doing it for everyone? States are making huge tax profits on the sale of liquor and tobacco, if they want to prove they're serious about trying to cut down on illegal residents (by pinpointing behavior, not race) they can do it at these times.

I'm not sure, I think I'm just rambling, and I haven't really thought these things through so thoroughly. I think the important thing is to limit the sort of imposing Big Brother figure that is going to loom over Hispanic residents, at least for the time being. American citizens are supposed to have certain rights, regardless of their ancestry or looks. It's important to maintain that staple of our country's political freedom, but the fact is, illegal immigrants don't really have those same rights. If you're here illegally, you shouldn't be here. I know our country was founded on an open door policy, but with the way things are now, there are too many people who would be risking their lives and livelihoods to let things continue the way they're going. Not to say that I would be one of those people--the truth is I wouldn't. I'm physically and mentally distanced from what's going on in Arizona, and so are a lot of the people who are spouting off about injustice this or unconstitutional that. It's hard for people outside of that situation to really understand what it's like. But I do know that here in Philadelphia, we have our own seemingly endless problems--including a big problem with violence. And I think that if I had to show my ID to police officers a little more often in order to ensure that the streets and sidewalks of the city would be a little safer, it's something I think I could live with--as long as I didn't become subject to hostile or abusive treatment. Maybe that's oversimplification. But violence is a problem here, and I'd give a couple minutes a day if the administration were trying to step up its efforts to crack down.

There's always a delicate balance that needs to be struck with these things. These days, keeping people safe and happy are usually two separate, opposing directives. Arizona seems to be crying out for help, just as a friend who is having some trouble might. Maybe they're doing things not everyone agrees with right now, but they don't seem to be left with much of a choice. And now that they're doing what they have to do, it's up to everyone else to pitch in and help out--that is, unless you want to see them go down a potentially destructive path.