Time is not on my side, so here are thoughts in short form...
1) Matt Schaub trade: not as good a deal as the Falcons could probably have gotten a year ago, but also far better than paying that much for a backup who can walk for nothing in 10 months. The two spot move this year means the Falcons will get one of the following players, each of whom would make a serious impact: Gaines Adams, Jamaal Anderson, Levi Brown, Joe Thomas, LaRon Landry. Here's hoping one of the tackles drops to 8. The #39 pick will not be a bad pick either. There will be first round talent at that spot (Winston Justice last year went 39; Lofa Tatupu went around there in '05; Bob Sanders went around there in '04). Another option would be to flip that extra second rounder and another pick to move into the late first round - and maybe steal a guy like Reggie Nelson. Another second rounder next year makes the deal even better. This trade was a decent play. A better play probably would've been to sell Schaub a little higher a year ago, but as of right now, I don't know if the Falcons could've gotten a better deal (nobody was signing Schaub and giving the 1 and 3).
2) Like, a third of the world's population only cares about one thing right now: the Cricket World Cup. As a nonconformist and internationalist, I've tried to follow it a little. A bit of background: a decade ago I spent the summer in England, and tried for 6 weeks to teach myself how the rules of cricket operate via county cricket in pubs and box scores in the Guardian. Needless to say, I don't think I did a good job at it. The World Cup is a bit simpler to understand, since it's one-day internationals and the rules seem a little simpler, to me at least. Anyway, there's a host of odd storylines coming out of the Cup. Namely, major upsets. Pakistan and India are two of the better teams, and both have lost to teams with weaker reputations. Despite an upset loss to youthful Bangladesh, India still have a chance to advance to the knockout next round with a win over Sri Lanka (thanks, mainly, to a rout of Bermuda). A loss to Sri Lanka probably means India are heading back to the subcontinent. But at least they still have hope. India's neighbors to the west, Pakistan, are already heading home. The big story has been the death of manager Bob Woolmer under suspicious circumstances. But that was all after Pakistan had already been eliminated by the Irish on St. Patrick's day. We Americans might not know better, but Ireland isn't exactly a huge hotspot for cricket. The Republic kind of doesn't like to act like a good colony. So the win over Pakistan was a massive, massive upset. And with Pakistan's win over Zimbabwe today, the Irish have clinched advancement to the knockout next round before their match against the Windies. The bad news is that Ireland will face either England or New Zealand in the next round be likely the worst team left in the tournament and will face all the other good teams - meaning probable elimination before the final four. Still it's been a great cup for Ireland, and a total disaster for Pakistan. And that'll probably be the last I mention cricket on here. But it does give something to follow along during the day for the next few weeks.
[I edited this because I realized it was messed up.]
3) Part One of LD's theories without statistical support or serious research backing it up...
An idea I noticed last year and maybe the previous year in the NCAA basketball tournament hasn't come up again this year, until this weekend. Domes and their effect on games. I've been to watch games in the Georgia Dome, and I honestly believe it has an effect on the game. There is a difference between the background players shoot against in domes from that background in a smaller NBA-type building. Teams that rely on three point shooting for their offense might have problems when they start playing in domes. Teams that rely on frontcourt power, rebounding and high-percentage shots are less susceptible to that kind of effect. I noticed it last year in the regionals. Last year two regionals and the Final Four were held in domes. In the two regionals held in domes (Atlanta and Minneapolis), the highest rated seeds had major strengths in the perimeter (Duke and Villanova). Both those teams eventually lost to teams with far stronger emphasis on frontcourt play (LSU and Florida). Duke in particular seemed to struggle with shooting in the dome - J.J. Redick went 3 for 18!
Now, this year there haven't been any games played in domes so far, but they start doing so tomorrow, in the Alamodome and the Edward James Dome in St. Louis.
In St. Louis, my guess is that the dome helps Florida, who has probably the strongest frontcourt out of Butler, UNLV and Oregon. Butler in particular appears susceptible to dome-related poor shooting - their best two players are guards, and Graves, their best player is particularly reliant on 3-pt shooting. Oregon is one of the most frequent shooting teams from behind the arc. Many pundits have said that Florida has an easy path in terms of the other teams in the region, but with the effect of the dome on outside shooting (which I have little concrete evidence to back up my assertion), Florida might have an even better chance at defending their title.
In San Antonio, the dome is a little smaller, and it's an NBA arena already it was an NBA arena for a decade or so, so the depth and angles might not be a perfect fit for my theory. Regardless, Ohio State probably has some advantage, even though they have strong guard play. Oden upfront provides a better option than just about anyone in the nation in the middle. Their first opponent, Tennessee, features an offense that takes a ton of threes and whose best players rely on outside jumpers. Memphis plays uptempo, and is pretty balanced. Texas A&M runs a lot of high screens for 3-pt shots. The Aggies have good shooters - but if they went cold the offense could suffer.
Basically, I'd guess Florida and Ohio State have some advantage because their regions are played in domes. Then the next week in the Georgia Dome, who knows how it'll be, depending on the other teams that advance. Perhaps I'll actually have to update my blog again this month.
4) Part Two of LD's theories without statistical support or serious research backing it up...
The University of South Carolina wants to ruin international soccer, or at least cause headaches for lots of players involved in it.
First, a few weeks ago some college football dudes noticed the trials and tribulations of the hair-apparent (booo...) to Steve Taneyhill's legacy for the Cocks, Stephen Garcia. Dude was arrested (the first time, not the keying) for public drunkeness and not responding to a cop. How was it that Garcia got so drunk? He was pounding away at a birthday party at Columbia's Knock Knock Club for West Ham United defender Anton Ferdinand. Anton, the not as talented but equally as obnoxious brother of England and Man U international Rio Ferdinand, for some reason wanted to celebrate his 22nd birthday with some of his friends who play for the Cocks' soccer team in Columbia, rather than, on his own continent, during the season, etc. In fact, the story is that Anton lied to the club about his whereabouts. He said he was visiting a sick grandmother or something, not going to Columbia to get drunk. I gotta tell ya... I find this whole story weird. Stephen Garcia and Anton Ferdinand in the same news item? Odd.
Then this week there was a bigger name involved in a fracas concerning someone related to the USC athletic department. This week Inter Milan and Brazil stud Adriano got into a bar fight with Rolando Howell, a basketball player for Varese who played his college ball at, yep, South Carolina. Howell's a 6'9" Center in the Italian league. Evidently the fight was over a woman, some Italian celebrity.
So in a span of a few weeks, not one, but two international soccer players have incidents with legal implications, and both are somehow connected with the University of South Carolina. Coincidence? How could this be a coincidence. Clearly USC has it in for the entire international sporting community.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Half Volleys
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Announcement!
A while ago I teased that there was something else I liked that deserved its own post. I've also hinted at other reasons why I haven't been posting as much as I used to. Not to put this all on one reason, especially one that can't exactly defend herself, but well, here goes.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Lord and Lady Douchebag present to you...
The Countess:
No matter what I write on here, or do in real life, this is the best thing I've ever created.
Blogroll Updated
I added and moved around a whole bunch of links. Lots more reference sites, and a host of sports blogs added.
I deleted some blogs as well. Some have been inactive for a while, others I know have moved on to SB Nation or AOL Fanhouse sites. If I deleted your link and you want it back, email me at the address in the upper right corner and I'll add it back.
As always, the fact that I link to other sites on the blogroll does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything that's written on that site.
The blogroll's purpose is first and foremost for my ease of navigating to sources I seek out frequently. A secondary purpose is to direct readers there.
If you want me to add you as a link, feel free to email me the address and I'll have a look at it. Fair warning: I won't be linking to sites simply as advertisement or to gambling sites.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Live from Peshawar!!!
So last night I tried calling in to EDSBS radio... Unfortunately, when they called me back, I was rolling along in the single worst spot in the metropolitan area of Atlanta for my celly to receive reception (there's a hole in coverage at the confluence of Ponce and Scott Blvd. right under the railroad track bridge). I tried calling back again, but I totally understand only getting one bite at the apple.
I did have some answers to the 4 questions...
1) What I know about my team... I was planning on taking this a different route. My team is Georgia, but there are far better bloggers that track the Dawgs much better than I do. So I was planning on instead talking about the "team" I probably write the most about in the Fall - the on-camera crew of pundits on College Gameday. And here's what I know about my team: Nothing is going to change. Sure, there might be a few new quirks or sponsored bits (like a field goal kick for scholarship money or something). But for the most part, there'll be nothing different. Expect the same lack of analysis, baseless predictions, biases worn on sleeves, and, of course, loads and loads and loads of cross-promotion.
2) What I don't know about my team... Well, this is also only tangentially about that. What I don't know, and really don't understand is why no other television network creates a competitor for College Gameday. Last year it was plainly evident that ESPN had taken a pro-cross-promotion view towards the show. Chris Fowler admitted as much in a column and on-air. If you are a television executive at CBS or Fox Sports Net (or even TBS), you had to hear loud and clear that ESPN will no longer be covering your products as well as they used to. Basically, ESPN was begging someone to create their own show. But so far, nobody has stepped up. And the main thing is that College Gameday isn't that good! Yes, it set the bar, but others can definitely go above it. A competing show can focus on things lots of fans care about - like actual analysis, weather reports, injury reports - things gamblers want to know about. Things that NFL pregame shows do a pretty good job of. If CBS put on a serious minded show, with good production values and relied on news and analysis rather than personalities, I honestly think they'd draw a sizable audience.
3) Offseason coping mechanism... I'm polygamous when it comes to sports, so I don't get bothered by March Madness, baseball, etc. I actually like them. Also, I dig on foreign sports, so I follow the premiership and international soccer. This summer I'll be following the America's Cup hard core too. Oh yeah... I sometimes even talk to my wife.
4) Badass death... I had two, but both are kind of long. If I had to cut it short, I would've just said the way Lt. Frank Drebin wanted to go: having your nuts chewed off by a Lapplander. The other options:
(A) The setting: smoky, black and white Texas heat of an old Jim Thompson novel. I've fallen in with a woman. A dark, mysterious, sultry woman. The kind who would let the pork chops burn while she was building your appetite. The kind of dame whose powers of persuasion were unsurpassed. She might've led me on, but what's a schlub accountant in a town like this supposed to do? Anyway, I did her taxes, she did her part. It was a mutually beneficial relationship until her ex husband rolled into town. She needed something to happen, and when she needed something, my own needs didn't get met. We worked together on a plan. A dark plan. A twisty plan. But when push came to shove, I was the one who had to pull the trigger, and the one who had to mix the metaphors. My accounting skills moved the cuckhold's cash into the right nooks and crannies, and the dame made sure I was in the right spot to hook the noose around the ex's neck. But surprisingly enough, when the noose tightened around his neck, I felt a choke myself. Turns out that the angles played by this angel weren't just in my favor. The big brute of a sheriff rolls in at the right time, just after one final roll in the hay with the dame. Finally I realized where the cash was flowing, and who exactly was benefitting. They pulled a pound and a half of lead from my gut, placed there from the biggest barrel on a sidearm any lawman in Texas is allowed to carry. I can't say it wasn't worth it though. She was the kind of woman you knew was too good for you, but how can you say no? The scam worked perfectly, just the mark wasn't who I thought it was. Course, that sheriff's kid ain't who he think he is either. [Fade out from bleeding dude half naked on bed.]
(B) Glastonbury. Darkness. 800,000 in the crowd. Storm clouds gather in the distance. The original lineups, all reunited. GnR, Crue, Van Halen (not Van Hagar), and Metallica featuring the reanimated corpse of Cliff Burton. Naturally, they invite me on stage to take over on the skins. After a face melting, boner inducing 24 minute drum solo (during which Tommy Lee announced his retirement from drumming and Lars Ullrich hanged himself out of pure exasperation in knowing that they'll never rule as hard), the storm grows closer and more violent. 800,000 arms in the air, having been rocked so hard they've gotten sober, drunk again, and had their eardrums explode. Finally, I build to a climax on the solo. Hitting it so hard people are losing their minds. I build to the back of the set, with the sticks trained on the massive, double gong on what used to be Tommy Lee's set. At the exact instant I strike both gongs, sending a massive pulse through the crowd that instantly causes 800,000 people to quiver in ecstasy at once, 13 strikes of lightning slam into the stage at once. Luckily, the sheer force of the gong strikes draws all lightning away from the other people on stage, who have either passed out in rapture or are unable to move because they are stultified by my awesomeness. 13 strikes of lightning and thousands of volts of electricity instantly congregate on the gong I am currently banging. The confluence of electricity explodes at my last strike - and the full amount of force channels into my bones. Since the strikes knocked out the power on stage, the lightning is the only light seen by the crowd. The current travels into me, lighting up my bones like a fluorescent skeleton. For 3 minutes, I continue the drum solo as an electric skeleton on the dark stage, again building to the gongs, for the finale, I strike both gongs at once. This channels all of the electricity back into the gongs, and the sound waves send the electricity back to where it came from. The lights come back on, the transfixed crowd comes out of their trance. I lie on the ground slumped over. A casualty of rock.
Apologies for not coming through in the clutch and for making the show less good with my terrible phone and all.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Wow. How embarrassing for him and CBS
Last year on Selection Sunday Billy Packer's performance was horrible. His personal ties to power broker coaches in major conferences were on display for everyone to see, and a perfect case study for anyone wanting to discuss ethics and conflicts of interest for pundits in the media. His rants about how undeserved the at-large berth for George Mason proved to be an extremely poetic finish when the green and gold advanced to the final four. One would think that his performance last year couldn't be topped.
It was today.
With 14.5 seconds left in the UNC-Duke game, with a 12 point lead for the Tar Heels, Tyler Hansbrough took the ball to the rim, was fouled by two Blue Devils, had the ball knocked away after a foul, and was clearly, unambiguously clocked with a forearm to the face by Duke's Gerald Henderson. The foul was among the most vicious that I've ever seen. It could be considered a punch (though I'm not exactly sure - see update below). It could be considered an elbow. Henderson led with the forearm and the target was Hansbrough's face. The ball, long since cast aside, was nowhere near the direction of Henderson's thrust.
I don't typically like to presume to read the minds of others. I'll make an exception this time.
Gerald Henderson's forearm/elbow/punch to Hansbrough was 100% intentional. The facts and circumstances regarding the foul make this a clear inference. Henderson's left arm is by his side, not in the air, trying to block a shot. His right arm is cocked back and follows through after he strikes Hansbrough. His reaction after the strike is not one of "my bad, it was an accident."
Consider these facts: Duke-North Carolina is the most tense rivalry in college basketball, if not all of American sport. Duke was in the midst of suffering its worse loss of the season. The result of this game affected seeding in the ACC tournament (and NCAA seeding). Hansbrough dominated the game. 26 points, 18 rebounds.
Everything about the punch/elbow/forearm leads to one interpretation: that Henderson was frustrated with his team's performance and the result, and in order to protect whatever sense of self worth, he had to do something violent and outside the bounds of the rules of the game. This was a vicious, violent assault.
This was a more-violent attack than what began the brawl in the garden between the Knicks and Nuggets last December, but it came from the same thing. One team feels disrespected, gets mad that guys who punked him are still on the court, and they want to send a message physically. It's an embarrassment and not what basketball's about.
But this post isn't really about that. It's about Billy Packer.
Packer's coverage of this moment was so inappropriate and wrong that I cannot believe he is allowed to describe basketball.
For the first few minutes after the brutal, flagrant punch/elbow/forearm, Packer assured the viewers that it was clearly "an accident" and that Henderson was just "going for the ball". While Packer was narrating the replays, he disregarded the left hand of Henderson (at his side). He pretended not to notice how Henderson's arm was cocked back. He told us (at least three times) that Henderson was going for the ball even though the ball had been knocked away and wasn't even in the frame. Packer ignores that Henderson's eyes remained trained on one thing - the path his fist/arm/elbow would travel to strike Hansbrough.
He assured us again and again that Henderson didn't mean it and it was just bad luck that Hansbrough's face got in the way. Everything about the play and the circumstances regarding the finish of the game told us that this was a frustration/intimidation/classless foul. But in Packer's alternate universe, Henderson was blameless.
At one point Packer told us Henderson shouldn't even have been whistled for ANY foul, since Hansbrough had been fouled by other Devils already.
After Hansbrough had bled all over the floor, with definitely a broken nose and possibly lost teeth, Packer carried water for Henderson. A sad, small man does this.
But he then goes further!
For the next few minutes (it took a while for the officiating crew to sort it out), Packer spent his time telling us how it would be terrible for Henderson (a) to get whistled for a foul, (b) to get a flagrant foul, (c) to get ejected because of the effect on Duke in the upcoming ACC tournament. Direct quote: "This is a tough one for Duke".
Let's make this clear: Tyler Hansbrough, the best player on UNC and one of the best players in the conference, and clearly one of the most valuable players on ANY team in the nation gets clocked in the face, may have a broken nose, might have been hit in the eyes, might have been put out for the season (he didn't know anything about Hansbrough's status). But the victim of this sickeningly flagrant assault isn't the one getting discussed. No. It's a "tough one" because of the guy who did the assaulting might be punished appropriately!
How warped of a mind must you have to think this way?
When the officiating staff got the call correct and ejected Henderson, Packer grumbled about how bad a call it was. Mind-blowing.
Then he repeated the "this is a tough one for Duke" bit. Concern for the victim? None. Concern for the transgressor? Total.
Here's the only tough thing for Duke: Should they kick Henderson off the team permanently or just suspend him for the rest of the season. Because anything less is a complete sanction of the kind of cheap-shot that Henderson threw.
This was simply an embarrassing performance by CBS's #1 color commentator.
Here's the thing about Packer. Everyone around the country knows he's biased toward the ACC, and his personal conflicts are worn on his sleeve. This is only sort of true. Yes, Packer loves the ACC. But he really loves certain personalities in the sport. He's a water carrier for the coaches and programs he's closest too. He's close to certain personalities and his punditry is shaped by that. That's why he said such misinformed large-conference snobbery last year. And it has something to do with what he was talking about today. He was carrying water for Coach K. He knows the effect of today's loss and an early round ACC tourney loss would have on Duke's seeding in the NCAA tournament. He knows the effect of a (deserved) lengthy suspension for Henderson upon Duke.
He's shameless. He's a water carrier. He's a jabbering conflict of interest. He's not correct very often.
Billy Packer is an embarrassment. And when CBS lets him spout his slanted opinions, they share in his embarrassment.
Update: See comments for some clarification. I've edited the post a little bit to show that I'm a little wishy washy about terming Henderson's act as strictly a punch (though I think it can be interpreted in that way a little). I think there was intentional hard contact, and I've tried to state it as some form of elbow/forearm/punch or some generic term like "clocked". Main thing I think is about Packer's response, not the act itself - and his response was shameful regardless of how you describe the act because (a) Packer didn't know Henderson's intent but assumed the best (despite facts and circumstances) and (b) Packer's concern was all for Duke, rather than the guy who actually got hit.
Second Update: In regard to the foul itself, I think Pat Forde's article is pretty good, though I think he's a little too unequivocal about the foul being unintentional.
Yet another Update: Welcome Deadspin readers! If you got here from somewhere else, you can see the footage of Packer's comments at Deadspin here and at Loser With Socks (which I've been meaning to add to the blogroll for about a year it seems) here.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Mind, Zapped. Ass, Kicked. Face, Melted
Flip Scoldjah and Excalibrah absolutely dominated the 40 Watt Club Friday night. Simply an incredible performance that every single person there enjoyed and will talk about for a long time.
Dude in the bathroom: Who were those guys? They were awesome!
Ice's dance-off? Amazing - and the crowd ate it up.
Nazgul pizza delivery, Immigrant Song? Pants-crappingly hilarious.
Wangs? Brought down the house. "That song was so fuckin' good!"
Can we get them to play more often? Please? I will not miss another concert with them. Also, Dr. Dog (who was pretty good), how's about playing until 2 if you're going to cut the earlier bands short? Hell, Flip and Brah should've been able to get back up and do 6 more songs after Dr. Dog. And it would've ruled. And everyone in the place would've loved it.
Simply awesome show. And now, I will go shit in a graveyard.
Soakin' in the Jircuzzi
I went with The Wrangler to the Dawgs-Mississippi State game yesterday. A few thoughts...
- I like how Miss State are the bizarro bulldogs. Dude in my row was wearing a Fresno State sweatshirt. Odd that the guy was supporting via clothing a team called the bulldogs, but not either of the teams playing. Is Fresno State the bizarro-bizarro bulldogs?
- About 4 rows up on the north side (opposite coaches), there's this dude who wears hilarious sweaters and pumps up the crowd constantly. He's hard not to watch. Anyway, anyone else noticed that dude?
- Gaines had a rough first half scoring, but his defense is incredibly important to the success of the team.
- Lots of people have noticed this - Humphrey created a whole lot by slashing to the basket and dishing. Here's hoping he can do that over the next two.
- The Wrangler noted, and it's something I'd fear - if Georgia ran into an obnoxious officiating crew, the Dawgs could be in trouble on the front line.
Flick the Button
Oscar Night, so I should catch up on the backlog. I saw 4 of the 5 Best Picture nominees.
1. Firewall. Massive waste of time. Twists were seen miles ahead. Big bright flashing strobe plot arrows. Mixed in were literally dozens of obnoxious product placements (including one for Equifax of all things). The movie probably made money before it showed in a single theatre. You're fired.
2. Rashomon. I wasn't as impressed as I think I would've been had I seen it 50 years ago, though it's hard to look at it in that manner. Maybe I was waiting for the movie to blow my mind and it never got there. The "big idea" is supremely creative, and has been copied dozens of times, but I think it probably needed to be, as it almost seems like the organization and themes could've been more fully developed. For the effect on things, it's probably deserving of all the acclaim given, but it wasn't really the thing for me. Maybe I should've given it another chance. As of now, an incomplete You're Fired.
3. Croupier. This was such an odd film. It seemed really dated for a 1998 film. The sets, costumes, and style seemed more early 1990s than late - and there's a real difference. Owen shows all the promise he's fulfilled since. The screenplay was a little indulgent and could've used a few edits, though the final payoff was quite good. Kept my interest, though I wasn't crazy about it either. Just barely below Steak Knives, but still, You're Fired.
4. Oklahoma! Doesn't really fit the parameters of what I do here. It was funny, campy and silly. The Lady's seen it a bunch and she loves it. Now I get her jokes about Tom Cruise's daughter having a fringe on top. Gayer and better than Brokeback Mountain. Steak Knives.
5. Stander. This was a great surprise. If you've never heard of it, it's about a cop in 1980s Johannesburg, South Africa who starts robbing banks. Fast paced, clever, and most of all fun. Tom Jane is likable as hell. I'm not sure I buy the "result of apartheid" bit, but that didn't make the film any less enjoyable. Far more entertaining than any American action film I've seen this year (save The Departed). Sharp Steak Knives.
6. Music and Lyrics. Hugh Grant looks old, even in the videos that are supposed to date from 20 years ago. He was a little funny though. Drew Barrymore is kind of annoying. Everyone else really just looks like they're cashing checks. And this is ironic, since a major theme in the movie is about "not selling out and doing something just because you think that's what the consumer wants" - and that's precisely what everything about this movie was. You're Fired.
7. Flightplan. Kept us awake and the first 45 minutes are pretty good. The second half feels too rushed. They could've let Foster's character marinate a little longer - let her begin to doubt things. It just ends, too. I almost thought the Tivo had jumped ahead 15 minutes. Better made than Firewall and some other similar type thrillers, but it could've been a lot better. Also, The Lady Vanishes is much better. You're Fired.
Now, the Oscar choices... I wrote about Little Miss Sunshine before, which I liked probably second best among the 4 I've seen.
8. The Queen. A great screenplay, and fantastic performances. If it's an accurate portrayal of the royalty or not, it's far more interesting than anything I've read about them in tabloids and such. The Oscars made a massive mistake by failing to nominate Michael Sheen, whose Blair captured all the nervous brilliance of the PM in his early days. Steak Knives.
9. Babel. OK. I liked Amores Perros a lot better. This and 21 Grams are about the same in that they both feel like then needed things a little tighter and they needed fewer Oscar-reel scenes. The Mexico scenes were the most enjoyable. I don't know. Putting the problems of the world on horny kids seems like a waste of time. Or something like that. I just saw this today, so maybe it'll get better in my mind as I think of it. Right now, probably You're Fired, but maybe Steak Knives.
10. The Departed. I'm a sucker for energetic films, big performances, and twisty screenplays. This film isn't perfect (I might have a full post up on what I think are plot problems), but it's easily my favorite of the Oscar-nominated films. I will end up watching this movie probably a few dozen times. Every performance was fantastic. The direction was spectacular. A great film that I hope wins the Oscar. Cadillac.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Some things I like
1. Rob Huebel's myspace blog. "Welcome to the wonderful world of AIDS."
2. Luxury Ducks
3. Jigsawdoku
4. This picture:
5. The lady who dropped her O-ring laughing at the trailer for "Road Hogs" and further herniated herself laughing at all the moments previously seen in commercials during "Music and Lyrics" (don't ask... or do. It was hilarious. The lady, not the movie.)
6. How frequent LeBron James chews on his nails during games.
7. Season 1 of Veronica Mars (though season 2 much less so).
8. The Pac Man Jones strip club story.
9. Pissing The Lady off by watching the end of the Daytona 500 with genuine interest.
10. That baseball is just a month and a week away. I sleep better after a Braves win, and it's been too long since I've slept well.
One other big thing, but that'll take its own post.
OK, just one small taste of douchebaggery
So I was hunting through Michael's archives at Braves and Birds trying to find a comment thread where I was praising Valencia's lineup (lucky, not prescient... anyway, it's here). On my way spelunking around there, I spotted this post on a gem of an article by our favorite SI college football writer, Stewart Mandel.
The crux: 16 teams had a real chance to win the national title, in Mandel's opinion, based upon a number of reasons. One major reason appears to be mediocrity in the previous season:
While the past two seasons have played out largely as predicted, there have been three seasons since 2000 in which a team that finished with five losses the year before rose up to win a national title the following season: 2000, Oklahoma (7-5 the year before); 2002, Ohio State (7-5); and 2003, LSU (8-5). Auburn's undefeated 2004 team also went 8-5 the preceding season. All four teams started the year outside the Top 10. This year the Buckeyes, Texas, Notre Dame and USC sit atop the preseason coaches' poll, but the No. 1 team come January could just as easily be a lower-rated squad such as No. 11 Miami (9-3 in '05), No. 13 Louisville (9-3), No. 15 Michigan (7-5) or No. 17 Iowa (7-5).
That "five losses" bit should stick out like a sore thumb. Here's why. Of the 16 teams Stewart Mandel listed, half of them - EIGHT (!!!) - ended up with at least five losses in 2006. I'm no good at math, but I'd bet someone can put together a study as to what's more likely: bouncing from 5 losses to a national title, or going from 5 losses to mediocrity. Beer is on me if it's the former.
Some other fun facts:
- Mandel listed 4 ACC teams with a chance at winning the national title. None won the ACC. OK, nobody on earth picked Wake to win the ACC. But the 4 teams Mandel did choose... each and every one of them lost at least 5 games by the end of the season.
- Mandel only listed 2 SEC teams. Not listed is the eventual national champion. Listed is South Carolina, which finished 5th in the SEC East. Neither team listed made the SEC title game and neither played in a BCS bowl.
- Mandel picked a random non-BCS-automatic-qualifying conference team, Utah. The Utes lost 5 games and finished 3rd in that non-BCS-automatic-qualifying conference.
- 6 of the 16 teams had lost a game (putting them in dire position for qualifying for the BCS title game) by Saturday night, September 9.
Reset
Been a while. Lots of reasons and stuff.
In the silence, I've had some odd thoughts about what I want to do with this space. I feel like I've been too negative. I get this feeling a lot. Sometimes I wonder if the feelings of guilt at being mean or negative or picky or exacting or whatever aren't guilt, but rather the internal struggle. Am I fighting the real me, who is a jerk?
Anyway. I want less anger. Less catharsis. More positivity. This won't be easy. Because, y'know, sometimes you can't fight who you are.
So, as a way to start, here's that adorable dog Murphy, that just happens to be my friend and cohabitant:
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
If this weren't my son's wedding, I'd punch you in the face, you anti-dentite sonofabitch!
On the right hand of this blog, you'll notice several political blogs, and you'll notice that, like my rod, they lean to the left. But if you look through my archives, you'll note that I rarely write on politics. Mainly because I don't think you all are interested in my thoughts on politics.
But if you are a frequent reader at all, I do, in fact, write frequently about morons who talk about sports in the media.
Which brings me to this.
Hilarious.
I'll be quick with it.
1) The presumption that criticism of Rex Grossman is unwarranted is idiotic.
Grossman sucked in the Super Bowl, and wasn't very good all year long. Grossman was 24th in QB rating this season when you only look at "qualified" (14 attempts per game) players. When you add in other QBs who hadn't had enough attempts, Grossman isn't in the top 50. Only two player threw more interceptions than Grossman this year (Kitna and Roethlisberger). He was 28th in completion percentage. Grossman was seriously poor this year.
The Bears won this year despite Grossman, by no means because of Grossman. The Bears led the NFC in takeaway margin despite finishing in the bottom half of the conference in giveaways. Considering how close the Bears were to a championship (made the Super Bowl, kept the game close for three quarters - until a Grossman INT was returned for a touchdown), it's normal - and completely fair to criticize Grossman and wonder what if a merely mediocre QB had been at the helm.
2) Assuming that criticism of Grossman isn't warranted, the idea that such criticism is driven by race-based animus is utterly ludicrous.
To determine what the motivation for criticism of Grossman is, let's use Occam's Razor. Could it be that he's not very good, and as a result of his poor play the Bears weren't able to win? That seems like a reasonable motivation, so it's clearly not correct.
No, it must be because Grossman's white. The media simply want to promote black quarterbacks. That's why there's been such a coordinated effort to discredit Grossman - to get him replaced with his African-American backups Kyle Orton and Brian Griese. Wait, what's that you say? Both those guys are white too? Weird.
No, it must be because Grossman's white. After all, the media's efforts at promoting Grossman's opposing QB were non-stop, before and after the Super Bowl. The constant media fluffing of Peyton Manning was just a result of the media's pro-black-QB agenda.
It must be because Grossman's white. The media won't let up on him. Compare him to how much positive press David Garrard had this year (we've all seen his Sprint/Mastercard/DirecTV commercials, right). Doesn't it surprise you that Garrard is way below Grossman in rating, completion %, yards per attempt, etc. Oh, wait. Garrard isn't behind Grossman in any of those categories. In fact, there were only 5 black QBs who qualified for stats. Only one was behind Grossman in passing statistics - Vince Young, who was a totally inexperienced rookie. If you asked 1000 Bears fans if they'd trade Grossman for Young straight up, if 5 said no I'd be stunned.
See, the thing is that Grossman was poor this year. And that's why people criticized him. In football, unlike politics, there are objective statistics and outcomes that just about anyone with a brain can understand and make informed judgments about. When you see a player suck, you can call him on it. You can say, this guy sucks because X, Y, Z. In politics, opinion and subjectivity come into play. If you don't like a particular politician, you can say that it's because you disagree with policies, but someone can infer that it's because you don't like his race/religion/haircut/etc.
Grossman is criticized because he sucks in the NFL (so far). The criticism isn't because he's white, any more than because he's the son of a dentist.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
NOT DEAD
Nope, sorry. Just have writers' block and been busy with work, etc. I've had time for comments elsewhere, but haven't felt inspired enough for full posts here.
Promise I'll have something worth reading sometime. More movies and things that make me look less cool. Less football because, y'know, football kind of ends in a couple days.
OK. Something this weekend. OK.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Breaking News!
Bobby Petrino is coming to coach the Falcons. Can't say I saw this coming. Louisville's balanced attack over the last few years has been impressive, but I don't think (hope) that Petrino will come in planning to shoehorn Mike Vick into a particular offense.
Let's hope Blank opens the checkbook for the right D coordinator too.
On that, Petrino's salary looks huge. The only thing that'll stop Blank is the salary cap.
Big catch for the Falcons.
Before this, I was thinking that Blank would hire a retread NFL guy with some experience. Someone like Dick LeBeau or Dom Capers or Jim Fassel. There are two directions coaching hires seem to go, and they tend to alternate. Hire an "experience guy", which is code for retread dude who never got over the top, or hire an assistant/college guy, typically younger, and hope that you catch lightning in a bottle.
The Texans followed Dom Capers (retread) with Gary Kubiak (assistant). The Redskins went from Marty Schottenheimer (retread) to Spurrier (college) to Joe Gibbs (not a retread, but an experience guy). The Cowboys followed Dave Campo (longtime assistant) with Bill Parcells (experience guy). The 49ers followed Dennis Erickson (retread) with Mike Nolan (assistant). Likewise, the Seahawks followed Dennis Erickson (at the time, college guy), with Mike Holmgren (experience guy). The Giants followed Jim Fassel (when hired, a longtime assistant) with Tom Coughlin (retread). The Lions went from Marty Mornhinweg (assistant) to Steve Mariucci (experience) to Rod Marinelli (assistant). The Panthers went from Dom Capers (then, his first head coaching job) to George Seifert (experience) to John Fox (assistant). The Cardinals went from Dave McGinnis (assistant) to Dennis Green (retread). The Chargers went from Mike Riley (college) to Marty Schottenheimer (retread).
See the pattern?
And the Falcons have fit the pattern for a long time, too. Jerry Glanville (experience) to June Jones (assistant) to Dan Reeves (experience) to Jim Mora (assistant). I really thought the pattern would continue, and we'd hire a retread and there'd be plenty of spin about bringing experience to the organization, more discipline and a more businesslike approach. And the fans would be bored as hell.
I like the hire right now.
But I know one guy who is definitely happier than I am: Rich Rodriguez. His biggest rival is gone, and Schiano will probably leave in a year or two. West Virginia might be looking at a minimum 7 BCS berths in the next decade. Syracuse will eventually be back. Cincinnati just hired a good coach. UConn? South Florida has the best talent pool, but is fighting with others. Louisville has fantastic facilities and a good track record of hiring coaches on the way up. But WVU has the best coach in the Big East right now, and he's pretty well locked in for a long time.
Big Game Hunting
So with the hiring of Nick Saban last week by Alabama and the way Alabama folks (and others) have been talking about "experienced coaches", I started thinking about whether particular coaches are "sure things" while others aren't. Is it reasonable for Alabama to (probably) overpay for Nick Saban if he's a "sure thing", when spending market rate for someone who isn't a "sure thing" could be more expensive in the long run?
But what is a sure thing? Is it someone with several years' experience as a head coach? I'd say no, because someone could have experience over time, but never elevate to greatness. A coach could do just enough to get by over time, and that wouldn't make him a "sure thing". Is a sure thing someone who has a great overall record for an extended period of time? Maybe, but in college football an overall record could be misleading - there are too many teams, and too many bad teams that a guy could potentially win nearly 70% of his games, but lose against almost every good team he played (a guy at Georgia in the late 1990s, perhaps?). Is that a sure thing?
So I started thinking about how particular coaches performed in "big games". Perhaps that's a better gauge of the talent of a coach. How his teams performed against top talent.
First, a few disclaimers before I get to the data.
- For this study, I looked at a bunch of the coaches I thought were closest to "sure things" in college football today. I looked at guys with multiple years of experience, with big programs. Some guys who have recently become unemployed but still have experience. If I missed someone you think should be on the list, tell me in comments. Or feel free to run the data yourself...
- Big Games - this is very difficult to define. Rivalry games are "big games". Conference games are "big games". I recognize that my definition is purely arbitrary and is cleary incomplete.
- I used games against ranked opponents at the moment the game was played. Now, first off, I recognize that rankings are fluid during a season. A team that is ranked in the opening week might end up with a terrible record. Rankings during a particular week may not be a good indicator of how good that opponent is in the abstract. That said, rankings in a particular week is a good indicator as to whether the game is "big" - the perception of the opponent is good, the event is bigger. For example, in 1998, Georgia played at LSU early in the season. LSU at the time was undefeated and ranked in the top 5 or 6. Georgia won the game, and LSU fell apart, pretty much not winning another game and ending up with a losing record. That LSU team was not great, but the game against Georgia (I was there) was a huge game.
- Another qualifier that has to be said is that not all ranked teams are the same. It's one thing if you're playing against the #1 team in the country. It's another entirely if you're playing the #25 ranked team. My numbers below are highly simplified, but I just didn't have the time to do more extended mining.
- Finally, the numbers don't take into account how good the coach's team was or whether the wins and losses were against teams that were particularly better. For example, Jim Tressel and Pete Carroll have some of the best "big game" records. That may be because they're great in-game coaches. It also might be that they were coaching great teams against teams that, while still ranked, were ranked lower. So when looking at these numbers, take into account the teams these coaches coached. A losing record for someone like Ralph Friedgen at Maryland might not be as bad as the record suggests.
- Some of the coaches have very small samples of games against ranked opponents. Take those numbers with a grain of salt.
- Basically, these numbers don't really mean all that much. They're arbitrary, and small samples in some cases.
1. Pete Carroll (USC) 20-6; .769
2. Jim Tressel (OSU) 20-7; .741
3. Mack Brown (Texas) 18-7; .720
4. Larry Coker (Miami) 21-10; .677
5. Urban Meyer (Florida, Utah) 6-3; .667 (2003-2006)
6. Bob Stoops (Oklahoma) 15-9; .625
7. Tommy Tuberville (Auburn) 14-10; .583
8. Gary Patterson (TCU) 4-3; .571
9. Steve Spurrier (Florida, USC) 9-7; .563 (2001, 2005-2006)
10. Nick Saban (LSU) 13-11; .542 (2000-2004)
11. Mark Richt (Georgia) 15-13; .536
12. Lloyd Carr (Michigan) 14-13; .519
13. Frank Beamer (Va. Tech) 11-11; .500
14. Bobby Bowden (FSU) 12-14; .462
15T. Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) 10-12; .455
15T. Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin) 10-12; .455 (2001-2005)
17T. Bobby Petrino (Louisville) 4-5; .444 (2003-2006)
17T. Charlie Weis (Notre Dame) 4-5; .444 (2005-2006)
19. Phillip Fulmer (Tennessee) 11-15; .423
20. Les Miles (LSU, Okla. St.) 10-15; .400
21. Tommy Bowden (Clemson) 8-12; .400
22. Mike Bellotti (Oregon) 9-14; .391
23. John L. Smith (Louisville, Michigan State) 7-11; .389
24T. Tom O'Brien (BC) 7-12; .368
24T. Chuck Amato (NC State) 7-12; .368
26. Pat Hill (Fresno St.) 5-9; .357
27. Tyrone Willingham (Stanford, Notre Dame, Washington) 9-18; .333
28. Ralph Friedgen (Maryland) 8-16; .333
29. Rich Rodriguez (WVU) 6-12; .333
30. Mike Price (Washington St., UTEP) 3-6; .333 (2001-2002, 2004-2006)
31. Jeff Tedford (Cal) 5-11; .313 (2002-2006)
32. Dennis Franchione (Alabama, Texas A&M) 8-18; .308
33. Houston Nutt (Arkansas) 8-20; .286
34. Mike Riley (Oregon State) 4-10; .286 (2003-2006)
35. Al Groh (Virginia) 7-18; .280
36. Gary Barnett (Colorado) 6-18; .250 (2001-2005)
37. Frank Solich (Ohio, Nebraska) 3-9; .250 (2001-2003, 2005-2006)
38. Bill Callahan (Nebraska) 2-6; .250 (2004-2006)
39T. Mike Leach (Texas Tech) 6-19; .240
39T. Joe Paterno (Penn State) 6-19; .240
41T. June Jones (Hawaii) 2-8; .200
41T. Jim Leavitt (South Florida) 2-8; .200 (can't find 2001)
43T. Jeff Bower (Southern Miss) 1-4; .200
43T. Steve Kragthorpe (Tulsa) 1-4; .200 (2003-2006)
45. Ron Zook (Florida, Illinois) 5-21; .192 (2002-2006)
46. Dan Hawkins (Colorado, Boise State) 2-10; .167
47. George O'Leary (UCF, Georgia Tech) 1-6; .143 (2001, 2004-2006)
48. Sonny Lubick (Colorado State) 1-8; .111
49. Glen Mason (Minnesota) 2-17; .105
50. Jim Grobe (Wake Forest) 2-18; .100
51. Greg Schiano (Rutgers) 1-13; .071
52. Gary Pinkel (Missouri) 1-14; .067
53. Dirk Koetter (Arizona St.) 1-18; .053
54. Paul Johnson (Navy) 0-7; .000 (2002-2006)
ANALYSIS
Like I said before, this list shouldn't be read into too deeply. The sample sizes are small, and much of these records are tautological in that good teams provide good records to coaches, and good coaches lead to good teams. It's hard to tell what's the chicken and what's the egg. But there are some interesting things to get from this list.
- The guy with the most wins against ranked opponents since 2001 doesn't have a job right now: Larry Coker. I have to say I'm a bit surprised that his name didn't come up for any of the job openings this year. Maybe he didn't want another job. In any event, Coker should be in line for another job somewhere next year.
- Chuck Amato and the guy who replaced him, Tom O'Brien, have identical records against ranked opponents since 2001.
- Another thing about Chuck Amato (and something that shows how these numbers don't tell us all that much) - this past year he had a pretty good year against ranked opponents, going 2-1. He went 1-8 against the rest of his schedule.
- The Notre Dame question? In his first two years, Charlie Weis has gone 4-5 against ranked opponents while getting crowned a coaching genius. Tyrone Willingham was 5-6 against ranked opponents in his first two years at Notre Dame (a better winning percentage). Take note, too, that under Weis, none of the teams Notre Dame beat while ranked finished the season ranked (none last year, Penn State was the only win this year and they are not currently ranked, though they may end up in the polls).
- Looking at these numbers, I find it odd that no larger school has backed up a money truck to try to get Gary Patterson away from TCU.
- There is sort of a pattern for coaches that have been fired recently - the inability to beat ranked opponents seems to be a large factor. Look at Dirk Koetter. 1 win over a ranked opponent in 6 years isn't going to cut it. Gary Barnett hadn't beaten a ranked opponent in his last three years at Colorado (and surprisingly, Dan Hawkins' record isn't much better). Glen Mason rode Laurence Maroney to two wins over ranked opponents, but that's it since 2000. During Ron Zook's tenure at Florida he lost at least 4 games against ranked opponents in every year, and never beat more than 2 in a year (Urban Meyer's bested that in both of his seasons). If these numbers mean much, I think Gary Pinkel should watch out (1 win in 6 years).
- Nebraska fired Frank Solich and replaced him with Bill Callahan. They have the same winning percentage against ranked opponents (though Solich had a better record against them while at Nebraska).
- It might seem a little odd that John L. Smith is out of a job when guys listed way below him were in line for promotions or better jobs this season. Slappy is kind of a mystery. His numbers against ranked opponents aren't too bad. But his numbers against unranked opponents aren't much better. Against unranked opponents over the same timeframe, Smith is only 33-23. 23 losses against unranked foes (about 4 a year) won't let you keep your job at a school that thinks they can compete with the best.
- Some numbers are pretty skewed by coaching moves. Les Miles' numbers are much better at LSU than at OK State. Spurrier was naturally better at Florida than at South Carolina. Mike Price was better at Washington State than UTEP. Zook's numbers took a huge nosedive after heading to Illinois (and they weren't all that great to begin with). Willingham's numbers have tumbled because of the last two years at UW (0-9). Interestingly, Dennis Franchione has been better at A&M than he was at Alabama (I was surprised by that because it's kind of conventional wisdom that he's sucked in College Station). Half of Dan Hawkins' losses came this year at Colorado.
So if the question posed is whether it was worth it for Alabama to spend $32M to sign Nick Saban, and he's one of those guys who gives you a 50-50 chance or better to win every game against top opponents, I think the answer is yes. There are very few of those kind of coaches out there. If you have one or have the chance to get one, it's probably cost effective to overpay, rather than spend nearly as much (market rate) for uncertainty or worse.
Consider: some of the top coaching candidates at various schools this year are towards the bottom of that list. Guys like Mike Leach, Greg Schiano, Steve Kragthorpe, Jim Leavitt, Jim Grobe and Paul Johnson. Their positions on this list are lower mainly because of the difficulty in winning at those locations, but also consider that the fact that they are "hot" candidates largely because of their winning records - which must be inflated by wins against unranked opponents. Each of these guys might be able to win consistently against top opponents at a school where it is easier to bring in top talent, but they're clearly not sure things - there's some level of uncertainty in hiring any of them. I think spending $4M a year for a 99% chance of getting a great coach (Nick Saban) is probably a smarter decision for Alabama than spending $2.5M+ for a guy who might only be a 60-75% chance of being a great coach (with a decent sized risk that in a few years you'll have to spend money to fire and rehire another coach - and yes, there's that risk with Saban too).
Flick the Button
Massive backlog. I need to do this more often, because I start to forget seeing movies, let alone remembering what I think about them.
1. The Dukes of Hazzard: I hit on this in a post on football already. Better than I expected, and not bad either. Embraces Southern individualism that was the heart of the show, and also kind of does a good job at pointing out that folks down here are pretty sharp and witty. Fun soundtrack, and even the actors (I expected miscast) were alright. Enjoyable with a few great moments. Steak Knives.
2. The Island: As you'll see, there are a host of big budget action films I saw this time around. The term "OK" fits this one just right. The concept is a little interesting, and the actors are definitely game (especially Johansson). Michael Bay has a style I typically hate, but here he seemed a little toned down, and the movie was better for it. Plenty of worse ways to spend a couple hours (like with most of Bay's other movies). Dull steak knives.
3. American Dreamz: Pretty boring. Conceptually, I'm not sure how this movie got made. It's not very funny. The biggest flaw is that it's hard to watch a big-screen, large budget version of American Idol that just looks infinitely more cheaply made. The set looked like they filmed it on some high school theatre stage. And there really weren't any revelations or interesting twists that wouldn't have come up in a five minute brainstorm. This seemed just slacker. You're Fired.
4. Thank You For Smoking: OK, but felt like it pulled too many punches. Very watchable, and exceptionally well casted. Paced very well. But also not quite black enough. I wanted something either more outrageous or angrier. But that's not the director's goal, I guess. I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or not, but I do think this is the first movie I've seen Maria Bello in where her clothes have remained on. Weird. Edge of fired and knives... I'll go Steak knives.
5. Cape Fear: Original version. Kind of a disappointment. Mitchum isn't quite as menacing as I was expecting. Peck is great, though. Here's what confuses me: it's set for the most part in Savannah, Peck has to fly to Atlanta for a hearing with the state bar or something, but he rents a car and hauls ass to Cape Fear and says "I'll be there in a couple of hours". Cape Fear is in North Carolina, and is pretty damn far from Atlanta. Like at least 7 hours by car now, and when this was made, I'm not sure how great the interstate road system was in the South. Did the writers have no idea about the Southeast? The last 45 minutes or so, I dwelt on that. Unfortunately I thought it kind of dated too. Some serious plot holes too, I'd argue. No way that the transient girl Mitchum pounds on wouldn't press charges. You're Fired.
6. Brokeback Mountain: Boring, Boring, Boring. About an hour too long. Nothing happens for the first 45 minutes, and the second hour is extremely repetitive. Infidelity as love story doesn't work all that well, regardless of the orientation. Even the arguments of the beautiful scenery don't fly with me - dozens of westerns are shot as well or better. The only redeeming qualities of this movie were the costumes and hair styles of Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams. Especially Hathaway. You're Fired.
7. The Constant Gardener: Pretty good. I rather liked the lack of plot arrows, and trying to figure out what I was supposed to be paying attention to. Meirelles is an exceptionally talented director (City of God is one of my favorite movies of the decade), and while this isn't his best, it's still very good. The picture of Africa in this movie will probably be emulated by dozens of films in coming years - realistic, diverse, gorgeous and hideous. Thinking back on this, I realize how much I actually liked it. There were some simplifications and lecturing in the plot, but I kind of expected more. Might be the best non-comedy I saw in this group, and I kind of want to watch it again. Let's go Cadillac.
8. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan: For all my expectations and the previews I'd seen, it still blew my mind in dozens of ways. I'd argue that no character this year, and probably no film made this year is as indelible as this one, and none has become a part of cinema vernacular like this. Sacha Baron Cohen has done something amazing here. But you already knew that. All I can add is that it delivers on its promises. Cadillac.
9. Broken Flowers: Pretty forgettable. We've seen Bill Murray do this bit before and better. I think I've seen the Jeffrey Wright character before too (Portman's adoptive brother in Garden State?). Felt like a movie that confuses silence with depth, and forgets to be interesting in the process. A shrug of a movie. You're Fired.
10. Ravenous: Easily the strangest movie in this collection. This is a movie that has no idea what it is, and I as the viewer was left as confused. Kind of horror movie, kind of comedy, kind of period drama, kind of pretty-scenery-and-electronic-music movie. The actors seemed to have little guidance as to how ridiculous to perform. Carlyle goes over the top, Pearce goes restrained, and most of the other characters just go bad. Thoroughly odd. Had it chosen a particular path to go down, it might've been OK. You're Fired.
11. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby: Successful. I laughed hard frequently. Reilly is great. What I liked about it is that it didn't so much mock Southern NASCAR culture as much as it mocked sprawling suburban culture and a culture of "winners and losers" divisiveness (similar theme to Little Miss Sunshine, below). There are hints that Ferrell can go on cruise control, and the movie could've gone more ridiculous (it probably would've been better as an R-rated movie, as most comedies). But still, it's an ownable movie and one that'll get put in the player or left on when it's on cable. Edge of Steak Knives and Cadillac. I'll go Cadillac because I know I'll watch it dozens more times and find funnier things each time.
12. Aleksandr Nevskiy: Eisenstein's anti-German film released at the onset of World War II. The depiction of the Teutonic knights is shocking - swastikas appear on the high priest's garb, the depictions of child-murder are interspersed with prayers. But also there's anti-semitism and the suggestion of capitalist treason (the characterization of the Novgorod merchants). Like other Eisenstein films, it seems like every frame is an amazing photograph. The point of the film is hard to find common ground with, but incredibly powerful filmmaking. Time capsule is really the best way to describe it - it places the viewer in a position where he or she must pay attention to the propaganda. Prokofiev's score haunts. A film I'm unsure I want to recommend to others, but also inarguably great. Cadillac.
13. Stay: Not as messed up as it thinks it is. The camera tricks seem like more of a crutch and ingenuity. MacGregor's pants are too short - that annoyed me. I also don't appreciate being told that I shouldn't have made the effort to pay attention. You're Fired.
14. Primer: I've said before how much I like fast paced movies, and I liked this a lot. Yes, I didn't understand it very much, and I've been asking all of my friends if they've even heard of it just so I could have someone to talk about it with. Yes, the exposition is poor. But I kind of liked that - I felt like I was tiptoeing along the unknown, just like the characters. I honestly loved the twist that technology leads up to screwing up/fixing the mundane rather than the big questions of existence. Is this sci-fi dogme? Is it even possible? Cadillac.
15. Everything is Illuminated: A book like this shouldn't have been made into a movie, because too much of the enjoyment has to get removed. The depiction of post-Soviet Ukraine is nice - realistic, not romantic, but also not as backward. Eugene Hutz makes everyone else look bad. But it's not as fun as the book. Had I never read the book, I might've liked it a lot more, but it just seemed watered down and too-directly told. You're Fired.
16. Mission: Impossible III: Watchable, but with huge problems: (a) I was totally rooting for Hoffman to kill Cruise throughout the second hour; (b) the internal traitor angle almost directly mirrored the plot of the first installment of the series; (c) Ving Rhames was totally underused (as well as the other members of the crew). But still, there were moments where I was on the edge of my seat - Abrams does a great job on Lost and here of making the viewer feel the tension well. Not a great movie, but I never once thought about turning it off or opening the computer to pay less attention. Steak Knives.
17. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest: Just because a film is the middle part of a trilogy doesn't mean it can't resolve anything. And it doesn't mean it has to suck ass. Unfortunately, this resolves nothing and sucks. All the fun of the first one disappears, and we're left with a plot that just keeps circling itself, a script that prides itself on using a thesaurus - but with characters using accents that makes the dialogue virtually impossible to understand, and no geographic understanding. They're supposed to be in the Caribbean, right? So how do they end up in the South Pacific and then in the Louisiana Bayou without any traveling to each place? The ending is as unsatisfying as any film in recent memory. Second parts are supposed to make you excited for the completion - this gave me no reason to want to see the third one. The worst of the movies I saw over this stretch, easily. You're Fired.
18. Little Miss Sunshine: I loved the themes, and the actors were fantastic. More Alan Arkin is a good thing. Greg Kinnear surprised me a lot. I ask why this family was together in the first place, but that didn't bother me too much. Plot devices were a little forced, but that's forgivable too. Several laugh-out-loud lines and scenes, a great soundtrack, and a satisfying ending. A very nice film, and one I'll think about with a smile. Generously, a Cadillac.
I resolve this year to do this more frequently.
A little follow up on blogbashing
Sorry to get meta for a second, but this has been on my mind for a bit.
During the second half of the Rose Bowl last Monday, Brent Musberger started going off on a rant about how the "blogs" would be all over Lloyd Carr for the relatively weak performance of the Wolverines against the Trojans. Bob Davie responded that Carr should be more interested in preparing his team for next year than what people are writing on the internet (reasonable), but Musberger kept pushing the evil of the blogs, and Herbstreit something about how there are always going to be detractors and such.
It is too often that mainstream media voices use their platform to degrade blogs, without any nuance or clear understanding of what "blogs" are. It comes off as insecure.
So here's a short primer on new media, for anyone is the old media who wants to gain a better understanding of "blogs":
- "Blog" is not a collective term for everything on the internet. For that, you should use a term like "website" or "on the internet". A "blog" is a specific type of site - a "web log" where thoughts, impressions, factual assertions, and other opinions are posted in a chronological order. A "blog" is akin to a diary.
- Many blogs have a function that allows readers to provide instant feedback, in the form of comments. Believe it or not, when a reader posts a comment to a blog, it does not immediately become the voice of the writer of the blog. Often readers post comments directly opposing the point of view of the writer of the blog. When a commenter posts something outrageous, such as a more caustic or irrational thought, that comment is the reader's, not the writer of the blog's. If I write a post saying "Coach X used bad clock-management on the last drive", and some commenter responds by saying "Coach X should be fired immediately, drawn and quartered and raped in front of his kids", that is not a function of the "blog" but rather a function of the way anyone can freely comment upon a blog, even morons.
- To follow up on that last point, some have claimed that there is no accountability in the world of the "blogs". This is patently untrue. There is arguably more accountability in blogs than there is in real media. The reason is that blogs have no built in audience, such as corporate-owned, billion dollar companies that can broadcast events. If a blog wants to have readers, it must have credibility, and in order to get credibility, it must remain intellectually honest, present things in a factual manner, and continually make interesting and salient points. If a blog's only point is to say "Lloyd Carr sux, should be fired!!!!1!1!1", nobody will want to read it for very long. And at that point, there is no point. If a blog can't be relied to to provide interesting information, people will stop reading it, and at that point it has no influence whatsoever. On the other hand, a talking head on ESPN can make elementary errors, be wrong about countless predictions, dumb any analysis down to second grade level, and nothing will happen - because people are watching regardless. Additionally, commenters on blogs are subject to the same kind of accountability - if they continually make no sense, nobody's going to pay attention.
- Some complain about anonymity on blogs. Bill Simmons wrote about how terrible it is that someone can anonymously slander people on blogs. I post anonymously, sort of. I'm sure some, if not most of the readers here know something about me. But just because I'm anonymous doesn't give me any right to slander someone. If I do publish false and malicious statements about individuals, readers won't trust me enough to read me. If a slandering tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to read about it, what is the difference? That's the great thing about the internet - it's a true meritocracy. If you continue to publish false statements, nobody will read you. That's true whether you're anonymous or not. Unfortunately, it's not true in the paid-media world. You can be wrong about countless things and continue to get a platform to spout inaccuracies.
- Here's something else people need to understand: NOT ALL BLOGS SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE. Some blogs track an individual's lovelife. Others follow politics. Not all college football blogs are the same. Some cover a particular team. Others follow the sport generally. Some focus on individuals. Some have a focus on particular conferences. I try to follow the media. Some blogs are clear on intent, and you can read it in the name of the blog, while others you have to read a few posts to figure out what they're writing about. The point is that every blog is kind of different, just like the people who write them are all different. So by saying "the blogs are going to be all over this", you make no sense. Some blogs might take a particular point of view, but there's never a complete consensus on any point.
- Here's a point that I think some bloggers might take issue with: Members of the media need not feel insecure about the growth of blogs and internet media. Seriously. I'm sure there are some bloggers who write online with hopes of turning that into a mainstream media job, and I also know that there are tons of online writers whose voices would be an important and excellent addition to a mainstream media outlet. But blogs are never going to eradicate old media. Never. TV pundits are still going to exist, newspaper columnists will still have their inches. Pavement-pounding journalists will always get stories because of their access. In fact, I (and I'd argue that most bloggers) want those people to keep doing their jobs. The only thing old media voices need to worry about is this: Bloggers will continue to pressure them TO DO A GOOD JOB. I don't want Stewart Mandel's job. I want him to do his better. I don't want Kirk Herbstreit to be off the air entirely, I want him to take his job seriously and provide better analysis and insight - and to be held accountable when he's wrong. We don't want your jobs, we want YOU to do them better. This is an absolutely fundamental thing about blogs that mainstream media members have to get if they ever want to understand what the point is.
- There are things on the internet that aren't blogs, and it may be incumbent upon you to understand them some in order to not sound like a total idiot. There are things called message boards. These allow fans to write and post opinions in a forum more akin to a conversation than a blog. Think of a blog as a mini-newspaper column with instant feedback. Think of a message board as a group of people hanging out around the water cooler. Sometimes comments pages on blogs turn into ad hoc message boards at more-highly-trafficked blogs. One shouldn't paint with a broad brush though. Many message board posts are extremely well thought out and well-written. Some are not. Some message board communities have a very high-level discourse. Others may not. They're not all the same, just like the people who post on message boards. But message boards are also fundamentally different from blogs - in that they are usually faster moving, but susceptible to inaccuracies due to the speed. It's like how a 24-hour newschannel is more likely to roll with a story that might lead the wrong way than a newspaper that has all day to let the story play out before rolling to print. There are also other things, such as podcasts, youtube posts, and plenty of other technological advancements that may be incorporated into blogs, but aren't necessarily "blogs". You might want to look into these things and understand how they all aren't the same.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Some assorted football thoughts
1. I'm not doing a recap because I didn't record it, but Gameday on New Years' was pretty damn bad. Tremendous cross-promotion for the Rose Bowl (which followed almost a month of promos). It was almost as if the other games didn't happen. Plus, several minutes were spent allowing Kirk Herbstreit to order AP voters to vote for Michigan if Florida were to do what Michigan couldn't. I'm on the record - under no circumstances should media personalities have any influence on crowning a champion. And to top it all off, the Fiesta Bowl, the best game of the day (season), was barely mentioned.
2. The supposed controversy over Nick Saban saying one thing while at a job and then another after he'd taken a different job seems to me to be media driven. Coaches leave jobs, and Nick Saban (as much as Dennis Erickson) especially has lots of experience leaving jobs. It's not surprising, and nothing worth getting all this upset about. The reason people are talking about it? Because Saban semi-berated journalists who were asking impertinent (to him) questions. One writer asks Saban a few weeks ago (while he still has games to coach for Miami) about Alabama, and he denies it. Ten, twenty, thirty more writers ask the same question, and Saban snaps at them. And then he turns about face, and the journalists he snapped at call him a liar. Add those journalists' friends in the print, radio and television media get the word out. Doug Gottlieb on ESPN Radio said as much yesterday in the midst of a 5 minute rant on Saban's lack of integrity. Saban can change his mind, protect his interests, and leave for what he considers a better job. Journalists can ask questions, write stories, and even become annoying to those from whom they seek information. And journalists are free, as much as anyone else, to harbor grudges against those who disrespect them. But journalists also should mind the fact that their platform gives them certain privileges and expectations. If too many journalists use that platform to promote angles based on personal grudges, they might cause more of the consumers to turn elsewhere for something balanced. And sure, there's a meta discussion here. Blogs and message boards offer equal opportunities for personal biases to come into play. And that's surely one reason why I like transparency.
3. I blame ESPN's overhyping of the Rose Bowl and the absolutely terrible announcing crew of Musberger, Davie and Herbstreit (which truly got worse over the course of the year - I kept waiting for Herbstreit to explode with a "why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots!") for me missing the Fiesta Bowl. After about 136 hours straight of football, topped off with a snoozefest of a game and a crew of announcers that stoop to mock those bloggers who SHOCK! want them to do a fucking better job than the unprepared, cliched shitshoveling that they do... well, I'd 'bout had enough with football. And the best damn game of the season drops in. The highlights were pretty great. I feel like an idiot.
4. I agree with Orson and Peter on the Sugar Bowl coverage. I'm about stunned that I'm writing this, but I actually didn't mind FOX's coverage of the Cotton, Orange and Sugar Bowls. For the Cotton and Orange, I got the sense that the announcers weren't talking all that much. They actually let crowd noise in. They let you hear the game instead of inanity. It was kind of weird, really. And really weird considering FOX's NFL coverage. The Sugar Bowl was a gab-fest, but the announcers were kind of entertaining. This all may just be due to the fact that I haven't gotten sick of the FOX announcing crews from all year long, like I have with every other announcer crew.
5. The Chick-Fil-A Bowl was a microcosm for my experience as a Georgia football fan. Frustration and joy. That is all.
6. I am not looking forward to playing Kentucky next year. And I've got a weird feeling that Ole Miss is going to make a leap up next year too. Georgia's schedule is not going to be easy next year.
7. One other thing about Boise State... There's been some discussion around the blogs about how Boise State should have some consideration for a title. Nobody beat them, so I say raise a banner. Boise State will finish no lower than second in the Lebowski rankings. I swear that system works. I swear!
8. I actually watched the last quarter and overtime of the Insight Bowl. Thank the Lord Glen Mason didn't take the Georgia job in 1995. Terrible coaching down the stretch.
Middle Schoolers Have No Frame of Reference
Upon request by occasional commenter The Dagger, it is my duty to comment upon the fact that Notre Dame hasn't won a bowl game in forever, though huge payout bowls keep beckoning, like a mistreated spouse.
How to put in perspective the nine game, 13 year stretch of losses for the Irish? I was thinking about listing any number of historical milestones that have come and passed since January 1, 1994. Rather focus things to football.
Since 1994...
- 87 different teams have won at least one bowl game. (and there's a chance for two more if Western Michigan and Ohio win their bowls this weekend)
- 30 teams have won at least FIVE bowl games.
- 6 teams have won SIX bowl games (Auburn, Michigan, Ohio State, Tennessee, USC, and... Colorado).
- 4 teams have won SEVEN bowl games (FSU, Penn State, Texas, and... Utah)
- 6 teams have won EIGHT bowl games (Boston College, Georgia, LSU, Miami, Nebraska and Wisconsin)
- 28 teams from non-BCS-automatic-qualifying conferences have won a bowl game. (and two more potentially this weekend)
The following bowls have become defunct at some point since ND last won a bowl game:
Freedom Bowl (in Anaheim)
Carquest Bowl, later the MicronPC Bowl (Miami)
Seattle Bowl
Silicon Valley Classic (San Jose)
The following bowls have changed their names since ND last won a bowl game:
Copper Bowl (now Insight)
Hall of Fame Bowl (now Outback)
GalleryFurniture.com Bowl (now Texas)
Florida Citrus Bowl (now Capital One)
Peach Bowl (now Chick-Fil-A)
The Aloha Classic and the Oahu Bowl have sort of merged to form the Hawaii Bowl
In 1994, Connecticut, Idaho and Troy were Division 1-AA teams. Each has won a bowl.
In 1994, South Florida did not have a football team at all. The Bulls have won a bowl.
In 1994, Boise State and Marshall were both in Division 1-AA. Both have won FIVE BOWLS!!!
The reason for ND's poor bowl performances that makes the most sense is that the Irish are favored by bowls and TV networks, and that means that ND typically has ended up in better bowls than they probably deserved, against opponents that have more likely "earned" their spot in the bowl from performance. I think that's a reasonable position, though I think it's probably impossible to prove empirically terms like "deserve" or"earn".
Are there other reasons for ND's inadequacies in bowls? How about coaching continuity?
Notre Dame has had 4 different full-time coaches since 1994. Add an interim coach for one bowl game (end of Bob Davie's term) and the George O'Leary debacle, and one could argue that ND has had 6 coaches since 1994. In 1994, Lou Holtz was coaching the Irish.
[[Aside: Lou Holtz isn't the only odd name you see among coaches when you look at college football in 1993-4. Here are some others: Bill Curry (Kentucky), Curley Hallman (LSU), Gary Gibbs (Oklahoma), Bill Walsh (Stanford), Dennis Erickson (Miami), Howard Schnellenberger (Louisville), Billy Brewer (Ole Miss), Gary Moeller (Michigan), and freaking George Perles at Michigan State!]]
Back to the Irish... 4 different fulltime coaches is clearly a disadvantage. But the Irish aren't the only team to suffer such a fortune. 15 other programs have had at least 4 fulltime coaches and still won a bowl game:
Alabama: 4 coaches (plus Mike Price and Nick Saban), 4 bowl wins
California: 4 coaches, 3 bowl wins
Colorado: 4 coaches (plus an interim coach), 6 bowl wins
Kentucky: 4 coaches, 1 bowl win
LSU: 4 coaches, 8 bowl wins
Louisville: 4 coaches, 3 bowl wins
Michigan State: 4 coaches (plus an interim coach and Dantonio), 2 bowl wins
Mississippi: 5 coaches, 5 bowl wins
Oklahoma: 4 coaches, 4 bowl wins
Oklahoma State: 4 coaches, 2 bowl wins
San Jose State: 4 coaches, 1 bowl win
Stanford: 4 coaches, 1 bowl win
Washington: 4 coaches, 2 bowl wins
Wyoming: 4 coaches, 1 bowl win
And then there's Boise State. Since 1994, when the Broncos were a Division 1-AA team, Boise State has had SIX different coaches that were there for at least a year. They've still won five bowls.
So what about the teams that are in Notre Dame's position, as in having no bowl wins since 1994?
Including ND, (and excluding WMU and Ohio, since they might win over the next few days), there are 30 teams that haven't won a bowl game since 1994.
- 13 teams haven't been to a bowl since 1994 (Baylor, Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Indiana, Kent State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, New Mexico State, SMU, Temple, Vanderbilt)
- 12 teams have only been to one bowl since 1994, which they lost (Akron, UAB, Arkansas State, Army, Ball State, UCF, Duke, Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee State, Rice, San Diego State, Utah State)
- Northwestern (0 for 5)
- New Mexico (0 for 5)
- Houston (0 for 4)
- UTEP (0 for 3)
I feel sad for Irish fans.
