#064 - Singin' the Bronco Blues

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

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

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

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

2011 (1-0 so far):

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

2010 (12-1):

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

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

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

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

2009 (14-0):

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

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

2008 (12-1):

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

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

---

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

#063 - 2011 NFL Season Futures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#061 - Pay to Stay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here's what I think.

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

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

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

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

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

#060 - The Tree of Life (2011)

Director: Terrence Malick

Writer: Terrence Malick

Runtime: 138 mins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#059 - Oscars 2011

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

So, here we go:

--

Original Screenplay

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

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

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

--

Adapted Screenplay

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

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

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

--

Animated Feature

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

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

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

--

Supporting Actress

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

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

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

--

Supporting Actor

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

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

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

--

Lead Actress

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

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

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

--

Lead Actor

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

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

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

--

Director

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

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

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

--

Picture

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

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

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

Good luck to all the nominees.

#058 - Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

Director: Banksy (ostensibly)

Writer: Nobody (apparently)

Runtime: 87 min

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#057 - The Vince Young Problem

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

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

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?)

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