NBA vs NCAA?

Jaquandor admits that he doesn't have the "the chops" to argue against some NBA zealot who hates the tournament. Well, I've already taken apart Newsweek's feeble argument; let's see what we can do with Matthew Yglesias'. (Note, that I tend to disagree with a lot of what Matthew says, anyway, but this should be pleasurable.) So, let's just take it apart piece by piece:

My favorite sport -- basketball -- is still in full swing but, at the same time, mercilessly pushed out of public view in favor of the NCAA Tournament. College ball is, simply put, basketball played badly, and America's obsession with that game's absurd method of determining a national champion is the true madness.

Right off the bat we can tell two things about Matthew. One -- he is an NBA fan. Two -- he is bitter about his sport not being shown on TV enough. Starting off your article by crying is hardly a good way to write an opinion piece, so we'll assume his intent is not to sway in argument, but to rant. Still, let's examine some of his key points.

Even if you're not a basketball fan, you probably see some of the tournament games. Thanks to the ubiquitous office pools, the tournament is broadcast constantly -- everywhere -- for a few mercifully brief months.

Oops, already getting his facts wrong. The tournament lasts a little over three weeks, not months, and that's including the selection show. Of that, there are 10 total days where the tournament is shown, and only on one station, CBS. (Unless you get the sports package to watch all the games, which I doubt Yglesias has done.) So, unless Yglesias is a bar hound or a fan of some CBS evening show, I'm not sure how he is being surrounded by these constant broadcasts, unless he's receiving alien transmission. And, you know what? On every one of those days, not one of the regularly scheduled NBA matchups on NBC or TNT were pre-empted. Yep, still bitter. But, quickly, Matt gets to the crux of his 'argument':

In all college sports, the athletes are, naturally, not up to the standard of their professional peers... Indeed, until the NBA changed its rules last off-season, it was by no means uncommon for the very best players to turn pro straight out of high school... Thus, many of America's brightest basketball stars, including at least three of the top five players in the world... never graced the floors of college competition at all. Other top talents ... graduate early. And yet another set of superstars ... don't play college ball because they're foreigners and cut their teeth in the pro leagues of Europe, Asia, or even Latin America.

Okay, so the NBA has better talent than the entire NCAA combined. One would suspect that's why they are paid. No one is going to debate that. But what does this mean?

This has two consequences for the college game. One is simply to deprive it of talent. College football isn't up to the NFL level, but the Bowl Championship Series really does offer the best 18- to 22-year-old players in the world.

Okay, I have to stop right here to mock anyone who is comparing the BCS to March Madness, which I did at length here. Insanity points climbing. However, let'sanalyzee his point. The NBA is depriving the NCAA of talent. And? Although I watch games for the intensity, the competition, the upsets, and the school pride, has anyone ever really complained that Kevin Garnett didn't go to Duke?

The other, more insidious problem is that in college, as in elsewhere, experience matters. Seniors have an advantage over sophomores -- they've had more time to learn the game, their teammates, and the coach's system. As a result, the savviest college hoops programs don't actually want to recruit the very best young players available. A top talent will come to your school, play for a year or two to show off his stuff, and then move on to bigger and better things.

I guess Matthew didn't see freshman Carmelo Anthony lead his Syracuse squad to a championship in 2002 and then go to the NBA. Think Jim Boehiem is less savvy for recruiting him. There have been many articles and conversations written about how the NCAA recruiting game has changed because of the premature (in many cases) entry of kids to the NBA. The days of having most of your players stay 3 and 4 years are gone, at least if they are good. Coaches adapt and survive. But this has had an inadvertently good effect on the NCAA system: Parity.

The high profile programs will always get the blue-chip players, but now they are staying less time, and are less experienced going into the tournament. The mid-majors, on the other hands, are usually flush with seniors if they get a chance to go to the dance. What happens? You get a lot of upsets, matching up the younger kids against the upper-classmen. We have three cinderella teams in the Sweet Sixteen this year, and at least one will make the Elite Eight. There is a trade off between experience and talent, and that creates parity in the league, maybe moreso than ever. What that, in turn, creates is no free rides, no gimmee games, and a helluva lot of drama in every single tournament game. So, thank you, NBA, for taking some of the young talent.

The NCAA Tournament, allegedly a competition between the very best teams, features an insane 64 squads. The NBA, drawing on a much larger pool of talent that includes a wide range of ages and players from all around the world, has less than half as many and could probably stand to drop a franchise or two.

There are people who are in favor of expanding the NCAA tournament, but I am comfortable with the 65 (not 64). Further, with the aforementioned parity, it makes sense to include more teams that have a legitimate shot. I won't disagree that the NBA could stand to drop a franchise or two, however.

Consequently, the college game bears only a faint resemblance to the real thing. The dominant big men who can transform a pro game are entirely absent. Strength, speed, quickness, and athleticism are radically diminished, and the quality of the defense is consequently laughable. Yet, despite the poor defense, virtually nobody in the college game has what it takes to penetrate into the lane and make a strong move to the hoop. So the rules need to be altered -- a 35-second shot clock instead of the proper 24 and a short three-point line -- to give the offense some hope.

Proper? As is good old English proper? Only if your game is all about scoring and very little about defense. You have to entertain the customers with your staff, of course, and that is what the NBA game has been marketing itself as for years: showtime. That's what Yglesias clearly puts his premium on:

To watch the world's best basketball teams -- the Miami Heat, the Phoenix Suns, the San Antonio Spurs, the Detroit Pistons, the Dallas Mavericks -- is to distinctly put oneself in the presence of greatness. The feats on display are not quite super-human -- Shaquille O'Neal and Shawn Marion and Tim Duncan are still members of our species at the end of the day -- but they certainly appear to be...

And on and on. I get it. Better talent. Superhuman feats of acrobatery. Woo hoo. I am in awe. But, still, you know what? I'd rather watch the Wichita St. versus George Mason matchup this Friday than some podunk drive the lane with expert prowess, followed by a highlight dunk, followed by a spectacular paycheck, followed by sighs of fans wishing they cared about the outcome of the game. And what it comes down so, as far as I can fathom, is personal preference. I love the thrill of watching kids struggle and fight to win a title for their school. I love watching the upsets and the agony. I love watching teams play in game where every single game could be their last. That is tension, not silly 7-game playoff series. When do the TV ratings spike? Game 7, naturally, when it's on the line, when people care. And you get that in every single NCAA tournament game.

It's of a piece with the same blinkered anti-elitism that led not only millions of voters but a shockingly large suite of pundits who should have known better to conclude that it didn't matter that George W. Bush wasn't up to the job of running the United States of America. It's the athletic equivalent of the blinkered anti-intellectualism no respectable person would endorse in other walks of life.

Finally, we get a little more insight into the mind of this goofball. Now he is equating liking NCAA hoops to liking Bush. Well, now it's pretty clear that Yglesias' love for the 'best' isn't so much about the NBA, but because he feels his politics should get a fair shake. Granted, the analogy is quite a leap, but this is where you calmly pat the patient on the shoulder and soothe him with, "There, there. It's okay."

The very structure of the tournament reinforced the mediocrity inherent in the sport. A six-round single-elimination tournament is crazy. Even a truly dominant team -- one that wins 80 percent of the time it plays -- will lose such a tournament three times out of four.

Wow, sounds tough. How do these teams manage without all that NBA talent? The very spice of this tournament is that sometimes, the 'best' do not win. This is like talking to a wall, but then I knew it. Finally, the rant ends, with as much dignity as it began:

If your alma mater is in the mix, or if you, like most everyone, has some money riding on the outcome, then by all means watch and root. But know that you're watching a kind of farce, a competition between players who can't quite hack it designed to ensure that being the best team is no guarantee of victory. Or, you can wait 'til April and May and check out the NBA playoffs if you want to see the game played properly.

There's that word 'properly' again, which appropriate signals the end of an elitist article. But not before his primary mental defect is found. Here it is, again

But know that you're watching a kind of farce, a competition between players who can't quite hack it designed to ensure that being the best team is no guarantee of victory.

Matthew can't stand to lose, and he can't stand that the 'best' team isn't guaranteed a victory. Aw, boo hoo, poor Matty has to deal with the real world! Sounds like Matthew was on the 'best' team in high school that lost the championship to an 'inferior' team and he's projecting onto the NCAA. He better not tune in this weekend, which, as always, promises to be one of the most exciting and unpredictable weekends in sport. Something that clearly would be unnerving to him.

V for Victory

The experiences felt the first time one sees a film are often hard to interpret. When I get caught up in the emotions of the movie and feel fear or exhilaration or sadness at just the right moments, do I feel resentment for being manipulated or moved by the experience? I suppose there is sometimes a fine line between melodrama and drama, between interpreting characters being stereotypes or archetypes, between current events and a timeless fantasy. Certainly, V for Vendetta appears in many cases to blur that line, and it says as much about the viewer as it does about fascism.Though it was written over twenty years ago, the film appears as blatant indictment of the current administration to some, validation for Islamic terrorism to others. I can definitely see where those who are desperately looking for symbols and direct references could find them; they always do find them when looking hard enough. A film that makes its hero masked demolitionist, bent on murder-revenge, blowing up buildings, and changing the way that the country sees things, is revolutionary for this new era. And just as dangerous in the way it inspires.

Oddly, I found myself thinking of Fight Club hours after the movie ended. Both films make you examine the nature of revolutionaries, one in a fascist England, and the others in corporate America. Though their ultimate solutions are similar and their tales dark, the latter is clearly comical in its satire, while the former is a serious drama about fighting government oppression. And the ending of the films are very different indeed.For me, V for Vendetta is best shown as contrast between the two times we hear the last bars of the 1812 Overture. At the beginning of the story, V takes Evey to the top of a building to observe the destruction of Old Bailey while Tchaikovsky is blared through the city's loudspeakers. We react as she does, with a mixture of mirth, shock, and that this guy is off his rocker. However, later on, at the finale of the picture, when 1812 is played a second time, the reaction is as different as our view at the beginning of the picture. When it is played then, it is a rousing, tear-inducing anthem that leaves one shaken.I can't recall the 1812 Overture ever being so effectively used in a film, nor can I recall a film that is as adapt at blending message, fantasy, action, fear, and old fashioned comic-book drama. V for Vendetta succeeds brilliantly. And if that isn't enough for you, there's always Natalie.

Madness misplaced

Everybody knows this is my favorite time of year, because of the NCAA tournament, but that doesn't mean that I'm not able to tolerate those who aren't obsessed. Mark Starr writing for Newsweek expresses that he just doesn't care for the format because it invalidates the regular season. I can understand the rationale of those who just don't get it, of course, and even lament those who wish they could get excited, but don't. But as Mr. Starr goes on to laud the college football playoff system (you know, the BCS) favorably to March Madness, I think his article could stand a few counterpoints.

Ironically, Mr. Starr starts off strong with his strongest point:

I’m not looking to burst anybody’s bubble (or bubble team) here. But March Madness isn’t a religious holiday with a pedigree to rival Christmas, Passover or Ramadan.

In fact, if it were a religious holiday, I would avoid it like I do all others! As for its pedigree, I acknowledge that it hasn't been around as long as these religions, just as I acknowledge huge numbers of people haven't been murdered in the name of the NCAA tournament. Mr. Starr starts to slip up when he harps about the NIT:

Still, with 65 in the NCAA and another 40 in the NCAA-owned NIT tournament, the college basketball postseason now reflects that growing instinct in this country to affirm every performance and every team’s season. It seems to mimic that youth soccer coach telling his 8-year-olds: "Really great job everyone. You all did so swell that we can’t possibly choose between you for the awards. So everybody is taking a trophy home."

That certainly seems to be the prevailing ethic. How else to explain the anger among fans that some mediocre teams like the University of Michigan and University of Cincinnati were bypassed for The Big Dance? No team that doesn’t play .500 ball in its own conference—both finished 8-8 and in seventh and eighth place, respectively—should have a grievance about the selection process. They’re lucky to have the NIT tournament as a fallback and to be dancing anywhere this spring other than at the school hop. (You’re kidding me. They don’t call it a hop any more?)

Admittedly, the NIT has run its course as a useful tournament. The Penn State managed to make the NIT, and I went to a bar to watch the opening round game against Rutgers, but I couldn't shake the feeling of impotence and pointlessness of caring about the game. Of course, the odds of anyone doing away with the NIT are nil, since it still manages to generate money. However, once you start comparing to the college football playoff system, this argument starts to sound hypocritical. We had, what, 30 bowl games last year? The Meineke Car Care Bowl? How about a classic like the MPC Computers Bowl? And who could forget the tradition of the San Diego County Credit Union Bowl? While basketball is trying to do the best they can with their outdated tournament, football continues to create new corporate bowls to rake in more cash. And yet, they still can't get more than two teams to play in their 'playoffs'. Here's more from Mr. Starr:

In fact, the NCAA "Big Dance" approach to basketball has evolved into pretty much the antithesis of its college football Bowl Championship Series. Though the latter is certainly flawed, it at least puts a premium on the regular season and conference playoffs. Basketball makes the regular season and even the conference tournaments largely irrelevant, at least for those top teams that have a shot at making it to the Final Four in Indianapolis on April 1. Connecticut gets upset in the opening round of the Big East tournament. So what? The only apparent consequence is what bracket it lands in with its No. 1 seed.

Flawed? It sucks! Its only claim is that once every few years, like a blind squirrel, it finds a nut. This was the first year in a while that there were only two teams left undefeated. If that had not happened, or if another team had won one more (say, Penn State), we again wouldn't have had a championship game. But it's easy to bust on the BCS, so I'll stop. Let's focus on those 'top team that have a shot at making the Final Four'. You mean like George Mason? Wichita St? Bradley? All THOSE teams that nearly got left out, who all have a legitimate shot at the Final Four? And what about those elite teams, like Duke and UConn? How did they get to that position of invulerability? By winning tons of, yes, regular season games. In truth, you have to do either really well in the regular season, or win your post-season tournament to get into the Dance, but neither is irrelevant. Not like Auburn going undefeated in the football regular and post season a year ago and being locked out of a championship bid because there is no playoff system.

Mr. Starr, yes, prefers the college system. No doubt about it:

As a result, I find college football and its championship a far more compelling entertainment than I do the modern NCAA basketball championship. In football, any misstep during the long season can knock you out of contention and, as Auburn learned, even perfect may not be good enough. By adhering to that standard, it succeeds in maintaining genuine suspense over the entire season. College basketball suspense is only beginning now and doesn’t really ratchet up until the pretenders have been cast aside in the Sweet Sixteen or even the Elite Eight.

You call it suspense, I call it frustration, especially having gone to a school that was locked out of a national championship game when it when undefeated 3 times. Two of those were back-to-back. Standard? That standard is arbitrary, and my patience has now worn thin with this equally thin opinion. As for the suspense, I won't bore you with a list of games from the first two rounds that were downright riveting, if you are a fan. And I guess that's what it comes down to after all. Mr. Starr is not a fan of college basketball. I would just respect that opinion more if he'd write that statement as his entire article than trying to compare an annually ridiculed 'playoff system' to a system that crowns a national champion every single try.

Slow Work Day

I'm tired and not into the work thing today. Call it a hangover from all the Madness this weekend. As such, in an act of ultimate defiance, I actually participated in one of those chain emails today. Here are my answers, for your reading pleasure:

Four places I have worked in my life:
1. Mechanical Engineering for a Medical Company that produced gynecological equipment.
2. Caddying at Manufacturer's GC in Philadelphia
3. Bartending at Brittingham's Irish Pub in Phildelphia
4. Testing MCI's phone systems for the Y2K bug in Phoenix, AZ

Four movies I could watch over and over:
1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. Harry Potter and Prizoner of Azkaban
3. Last of the Mohicans
4. A Few Good Men

Four Places I've Lived:
1. Washington, DC
2. Allegany, NY
3. State College, PA
4. Lansdale, PA

Four TV shows I love to watch:
1. Battlestar Galactica
2. Lost
3. The Simpsons
4. Law & Order

Four TV shows I loved to watch, but aren't on anymore:
1. Magnum, PI
2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
3. Scooby-Doo (original series, not anything with Scrappy)
4. Johnny Quest

Four things that really irritate me:
1. When I don't get enough sleep
2. Being judged
3. Getting my ears flicked
4. Hearing someone say how the prequels suck.

Four places I've been on vacation:
1. Ocean City, NJ
2. Ocean City, MD
3. Miami, FL
4. Virigina Beach, VA

Four websites I visit daily:
1. Cinescape.com
2. Hotmail.com
3. MSNBC.com
4. Byzantiumshores.blogspot.com

Four names I would never, ever name a child:
1. Shaniqua
2. Bradley
3. Jen
4. Any name that whose spelling has been changed to make it 'unique'

Four names I would consider naming a child, though I shouldn't:
1. Balthazar
2. Lucifer
3. Anakin
4. Spike

Four of my favorite foods:
1. Philadelphia Pizza Company's pizza with ranch dip
2. Salmon sushi with wasabi and soy sauce
3. Spaghetti with Meatballs
4. Philadelphia Cheesesteak Factory's Mushroom cheesesteak

Four Places I would Rather be Right Now
1. In my La-Z-Boy at home
2. Hawaii
3. Practicing my Jedi skills on Yavin 4
4. Snuggling

And, just for spice, I'm going to "tag" the ultimate list maker to do his own version. Of course, his answers won't be as 'correct' as mine.

The new Christopher Moore novel

It was with glee and anticipation that I pre-ordered the next book from Christopher Moore, A Dirty Job. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Moore's work: shame on you. You are obviously a hideously boring individual, without wit or taste. Here is the summary of his upcoming novel:

Cult-hero Moore (The Stupidest Angel) tackles death—make that Death—in his latest wonderful, whacked-out yarn. For beta male Charlie Asher, proprietor of a shop in San Francisco, life and death meet in a maternity ward recovery room where his wife, Rachel, dies shortly after giving birth. Though security cameras catch nothing, Charlie swears he saw an impossibly tall black man in a mint green suit standing beside Rachel as she died. When objects in his store begin glowing, strangers drop dead before him and man-sized ravens start attacking him, Charlie figures something's up. Along comes Minty Fresh—the man in green—to enlighten him: turns out Charlie and Minty are Death Merchants, whose job (outlined in the Great Big Book of Death) is to gather up souls before the Forces of Darkness get to them. While Charlie's employees, Lily the Goth girl and Ray the ex-cop, mind the shop, and two enormous hellhounds babysit, Charlie attends to his dangerous soul-collecting duties, building toward a showdown with Death in a Gold Rush–era ship buried beneath San Francisco's financial district. If it sounds over the top, that's because it is—but Moore's enthusiasm and skill make it convincing, and his affection for the cast of weirdos gives the book an unexpected poignancy.

I've reviewed all the ones I've read, and I'll have to update that with reviews of The Stupidest Angel and this next one shortly. This sounds like a return to form of the master; my favorite of all his works is (of course) Bloodsucking Fiends: A Love Story, which dealt with a good death of death, mayhem, and hilarity. Something to read when there aren't basketball games on.

Great College Hoaxes

Today starts March Madness, and I'm all over it, as you would expect, surfing the scores at work. Oddly, I'm getting plenty done as well, despite the urban rumor that these are the least productive two weeks of the work year. Maybe it's because I'm at my desk and fired up that the games have begun, but I really couldn't care less.

In keeping with all-things college today, I present the two greatest football hoaxes of all time. The first, and grandaddy of them all, is the Great Rose Bowl Hoax:

The Great Rose Bowl Hoax was a 1961 prank at the Rose Bowl, an annual American college football game. That year, the Washington Huskies were pitted against the Minnesota Golden Gophers. At halftime, the Huskies led 17 to 0, and their marching band took the field to lead a card stunt, a routine involving flip-cards depicting various images for the audience to raise. However, a number of students from the California Institute of Technology managed to alter the card stunt shown during the halftime break, culminating in the display of the word "CALTECH," a common nickname for the Institute.

Comparable in scope and in daring, if only to prank one's nemesis, the Yale "We Suck" prank of Harvard has its own making-of video

On November 20, 2004, at The Game, Yale tricked hundreds of Harvard students and fans into a prank card stunt: holding up placards spelling out "We Suck" in Harvard colors. The plan was meticulously co-ordinated and involved the Yale pranksters disguising themselves as a Harvard pep squad and handing out the cards with the misinformation that it would spell 'Go Harvard.' A video hosted on the website Harvard Sucks shows the planning for the prank and the event itself.

That video, which is pretty damn funny, can be found here.

Star Wars III.5

My chief henchman and sometime adjunct "Linguo" pointed me in the direction of some titillating Star Wars news about the proposed TV series:

[Executive Producer Rick McCallum] also says the Star Wars TV show is a go - "That's not going to happen probably for another year and a half while we develop scripts and everything else. But it's fantastic; we've got some incredible writers. It's going to be much darker, much more character-based, and I think it's going to be everything the fans always wanted the prequels to be. They'll be one-hour episode. It takes place between Episodes III and IV. It's going to be all-new characters, maybe a few bounty hunters in there to start the series off".

It goes without saying that you could put up this TV series against anything and blow it out of the water, even such tripe as American Idol. More importantly, it is champagne-toasting time for The Force.net, who suddenly got the equivalent of a long-term NFL contract.

Apathy and fandom

Everyone knows the story of how Bode Miller failed to win any gold medals. What made the tale more media-friendly was his lack of enthusiasm to win. It set off a reaction in many sports fans that felt a little inappropriate given the circumstances. (Several of my friends said they 'hated' Miller.)

That said, I couldn't quite put my finger on what bothered me about it (nor did I really try -- downhill skiing doesn't really rate on my watchability radar, even once every four years for the good ol' USA) until I read a great little commentary piece by Chuck Closterman:

I am no different than anyone else: Almost all of my favorite sports personalities display an unquenchable desire to win, and I'm sure that unquenchable quality is central to my appreciation of those particular people. And the reason I feel that way is probably because they possess a personality I cannot relate to. There are those who argue that sports are important because they symbolize the middle-class laymen who spend their paychecks on season tickets, but that is not always true; sometimes they are important because they embody feelings we can't experience. Most of the time, we don't love players who are like us; most of the time, we love players who aren't like us at all.

You are not like Cal Ripken Jr. You aren't that dedicated, you aren't that intense, and you care about your job a whole lot less. Ripken might be your favorite player of the past 25 years, but the two of you have almost nothing in common. In fact, I bet there are many days when you wish you could just take a suitcase of money to Australia, drop out of society, grow out you hair and smoke cannabis all afternoon while having sex with whoever you felt like. In fact, if you had the chance, you'd probably do it tomorrow. But you know what? I bet you also think Ricky Williams is despicable.

I can't read Bode Miller's mind, but I bet the interior monologue bouncing around his cerebral cortex sounds something like this: "My job is OK, and I'm good at it. I suppose I could even be better if that was the only thing I cared about, but I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be, beyond appeasing a bunch of people I'll never actually meet. And if I can get paid this much money for being myself, why would I want to force myself to become somebody else's caricature? I'm already content with who I am."

Now, it is possible that such sentiments would make you hate Bode Miller even more. It's also possible you hate him because you feel exactly the same way.

Madness... and love?

I happened upon an article written by someone who was 'born and raised in the Southern Part of Heaven, Chapel Hill, NC, home of national champions, the UNC Tar Heels', who clearly doesn't quite get the Madness. In reviewing her "March Madness: 10 ways to bond" tips for maintaining a dating life during the best part of the year, I found myself aghast or laughing at some of her suggestions, which were just short of something I'd expect out of Cosmopolitan. Here are the suggestions and my reactions in italics:

1. Place your bets. You probably don't care about who wins or loses, but you will if you follow this advice from Debbie Mandel, author of Turn On Your Inner Light: Fitness for Body, Mind and Soul. Wager about which team will triumph. "If your team wins, he has to fulfill your fantasy, and if his team wins, you have to fulfill his. This way there is a post-game celebration, and you're both excited about the outcome." While this may seem great on paper, no one feels like celebrating after their team loses. Bitterness and a grieving period are standard issue, and if you can move right now, you didn't really care in the first place. Personally, the thought of some saying "it's only a game" makes me want to vomit.

2. Make time for each other. Lauren Wilson of Washington, D.C. doesn't let college hoops interfere with together time. "If a big game is on Saturday night and I know I have no other choice but to watch it, I make sure the guy I'm dating lets me pick what we do on Friday or Sunday night, no matter how girlie or artsy it may be." This strategy doesn't work for the Madness. There are games on all day, every day, Thursday through Sunday for the first two weeks. That is the Madness. There is no time off.

5. Show your spirit. Cheerleaders are an integral part of any basketball game, so why not dress the part? My boyfriend is a huge hockey fan, but college hoops leave him cold," says Marnie Nathan of Santa Barbara. "Last year, he ran in during a key time-out in a super-sized cheerleader outfit to do a cheer for my team. It was hilarious and kind of sweet. He was rewarded during the break between games." Are you fucking kidding me? Suicidally stupid.

6. Wear the team colors. To connect with a partner after a game, get a jersey with your partner's favorite player's number on it and wear just that at the end of the game. You wear the colors during the game. Although this is at first glance a sexy suggestion, wearing it at the end of the game, should there be a loss, is too delicate of a time. You don't want the anyone to associate sex with losing.

9. Host a team meeting. Ask your date about the game if you didn't watch it together (or ask about some particular plays if you did). The idea here is to use conversation about the game as a springboard to more conversation - deeper conversation - so you communicate more. Follow up with questions like, "What do you think of the coach's decision? What would you have done?" Dumb, and extremely transparent if you don't know what you are talking about. If you are capable of having this conversation, you probably have already been having them, and if not, you should not attempt it.

UPDATE: I have just entered my first suicide pool -- for the Big East tournament. Go Pitt.

V for Very (Excited)

Not too long after the Oscars closed their official ceremonies did the Champion of Everything Off-White some comments that I agreed with (reproduced without a shred of permission):

Having seen almost none of the films nominated this year for any Academy Award (and how Revenge of the Sith could go un-nominated in the effects categories is unforgivable!), my only real opinion on the Oscars last night is on the telecast itself.

I thought that John Stewart did an outstanding job, after a somewhat rocky beginning. However, I don't think that was Stewart's fault, and having now watched enough of these Oscar telecasts, I think I know why: the Hollywood people are severely humor-impaired. In fact, I think this explains why so many recent Oscar hosts have fallen flat, except for Billy Crystal: one, the Hollywood people don't get a lot of the zanier or more sophisticated kinds of humor (I'm thinking of Letterman in the former and Stewart in the latter), and two, and this is big, they have almost no self-deprecation at all.

When I think about it, every time an Oscar host makes a joke about a specific actor or actress, when they show the obligatory closeup, that person invariably has this tight smile and curt nod -- they're trying to act the good sport, but it's pretty clear that they don't find the joke funny in the slightest. (Except for George Clooney, whom I admire precisely because he always seems to show, lurking somewhere in the back of his mind and visible as a gleam at the corner of his eye, that they whole thing is just a big bunch of BS.)

So when Stewart makes a joke like "Bjork couldn't be here because when she put on her costume, Dick Cheney shot her", I wonder if the laughing audience members get it, or if they're laughing because Cheney just got made fun of. And I literally lost count of how many times, in an audience-response shot after a Stewart joke that would have had his Daily Show audience howling with laughter, some Hollywood personage is blinking and quite clearly saying, "What? Huh?" And that's why, once the camera people realized that Jamie Foxx was getting the jokes and laughing at them and having a great time, they started showing his reaction every time Stewart opened his mouth.

And some I didn't:

The point was repeatedly made by various speakers at last night's ceremony that movies should be seen on the big screen. Lots of folks like to assume that the box office "problem" is a function of the movies (i.e., the ludicrous "Make better movies and people will see them!" canard), and Hollywood seems to want to assume that the box office "problem" is a function of the audiences (i.e., the equally ludicrous "Stop downloading all your movies!" canard). Odd that nobody seems to want to assume that maybe the box office "problem" is a function of the theaters. Renting a DVD and buying a box of microwave popcorn costs a fraction of what it does to go to the movies these days. Check out this recent Roger Ebert "Answer Man" column, which focuses entirely on how much of a pain it is to go to theaters these days. As wonderful as theaters are now, with astonishing sound and stadium seating, they've priced themselves well out of being regular entertainment venues.

Jaquandor appears to think that a primary reason for lack of attendance is that it costs too much these days, as he mentions it twice.

Although Jaquandor dismisses the notion that people don't see as much movies because of the quality, I can't as readily. This year, I've gone to see less movies than any year I can recall in the last 15 years (not by a wide margin, however), yet I've seen every film I wanted to in the theater. I'm sure that if there were more films put out that appealed to me, I would have gone to the theater. The fact of the matter is that if I want to see it in a theater, I can't think of any current issue that would dissuade me.

Now, if the theaters want to take note of some of Ebert's suggestions, like blocking cell phone reception (or maybe employing a portable cell phone jammer) and eliminating commercials, I think that would definitely enhance the experience, but it isn't going to keep me away, either. Frankly, none of that bothers me as much as parents who bring in chatty kids to Rated-R movies. One time I lost my cool so much as to whisper loudly in their direction to "have your kids shut-the-fuck-up, please." What are they going to do, complain about the cursing? They are in a Rated-R movie to begin with! If you can't teach your kids etiquette outside the theater, I'll be pissed off enough to give them a crash course in the theater. Think I have an issue? Not compared to this guy.

Anyway, when possible to avoid such situations, I usually attend a screening of a film after a few weeks, when the crowds have died down and the odds of encountering obnoxious patrons has significantly decreased. I even get a thrill about being one of only a couple a people in a huge theater.

All that aside, this has more to do with the films themselves. I hadn't seen any of the Oscar contenders for best picture because, well, I just didn't have the desire to see them. I didn't have anything against them, but neither would I say, "Hey, let's go watch 'Capote'!" I'll wait for the DVD, thanks. As for "Crash", I had heard long before that it was rascism for idiots, so I doubt I'll bother with that anyway. The last film I saw in the theater, King Kong, was quite amazing, but I wasn't necessarily chomping at the bit to see it. However, there is a movie finally on the near-horizon that has my expectations up, and my Fandango card at the ready.
V for Vendetta is that film. Produced by the Wachowski brothers of Matrix fame, the movie is an adaptation of the graphic novel by Alan Moore. Here's the description of the film from the official site, for those of you unfamiliar:

Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (NATALIE PORTMAN) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (HUGO WEAVING) known only as Â?V.Â? Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about VÂ?s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself Â? and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.

Cinescape has posted notice that V for Vendetta has released several trailers and clips from the upcoming film. Looks damn titillating to me, but I entreat you to view a couple and decide whether you will be attending (without your cell phone and bratty kid, of course).

Little victories

Last night I was watching the end of House, and after the credits rolled, the production company's logo rolled. I hadn't seen this one before, which depicts two cartoon guys hanging out at the beach, and one of them says, "That's some bad hat, Harry."

My immediate reaction was one of familiarity, which quickly turned to aching familiarity. I've heard that line before... somewhere in some film or TV show. But where? It wasn't a well known line, but I knew that I had heard it many times. After a few fruitless minutes of trying to think of the answer, I just let it go, knowing that subconsciously, my brain would continue to search for the answer.

I rely on this all the time. It works for all manner of things, from things you know you know (like movie quotes you have heard) to things you haven't figured out yet (like coding problems). It still amazes me when I come back to something I haven't thought about in a while, and the answer seems so obvious.

In this particular case, I resumed thinking about the question this morning, on the way to work. The answer hit me like a ton of bricks after a few seconds. From an early beach scene in Jaws, when an old man is teasing Chief Brody about his fear of water:

Harry: It's cold. We know all about you, Chief. You don't go in the water at all, do you?
Brody: That's some bad hat, Harry.

Once I knew the answer, I felt a wave of triumph wash over me, not unlike my profile picture at the right of this blog. It's funny how recalling some obscure trivia can make my day, and thus bore you, the reader, to tears.

And who would name a production company after a lesser-known line from a 30-year-old movie? A director, of course:

BadHat Harry Productions is a production company that was started by director/writer/producer Bryan Singer. The company, which also produces television shows as well as video games, has produced such well known films as The Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil, and both X-men movies. Current projects include the upcoming sci-fi miniseries The Triangle, Superman Returns, and House, M.D. which is a hit television show entering its second season on Fox.

Easier to criticize than to lead

Not more than a week after I complained that democrats need to have policy instead of whining than the Washington Post runs an article saying that Democrats appear to be dropping the political ball, given the recent climate of opportunities:

News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall. But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own.

Democratic leaders had set a goal of issuing their legislative manifesto by November 2005 to give voters a full year to digest their proposals. But some Democrats protested that the release date was too early, so they put it off until January. The new date slipped twice again, and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) says the document will be unveiled in "a matter of weeks."

Some Democrats fear that the hesitant handling is symbolic of larger problems facing the party in trying to seize control of the House and Senate after more than a decade of almost unbroken minority status. Lawmakers and strategists have complained about erratic or uncertain leadership and repeated delays in resolving important issues.

The conflict goes well beyond Capitol Hill. The failure of congressional leaders to deliver a clear message has left some Democratic governors deeply frustrated and at odds with Washington Democrats over strategy.

I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on here! But wait for the best part...

Party leaders, for example, have yet to decide whether Democrats should focus on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush and the Republicans, by jumping on debacles such as the administration's handling of the Dubai port deal -- or stress their own priorities and values.

And in the process, maybe lead? It would be exciting for this to happen, but we all know it's a lot easier to sling mud than to build a house. Here's the golden opportunity, with so many things going against the current administration, and I'm taking wagers on how the democrats will blow it by infighting. Sometimes, it's just painful to watch.