Numerous news sources are reporting that the MWC is trying to get an automatic bid into the BCS bowls.
Now they have a compelling case. You could say that, this year, the MWC was a better conference (especially at the top) than the ACC, theBig East, and even possibly the Big Ten. The automatic bids for the ACC and Big East are historical matters -- it's really based on the strength of Miami and Virginia Tech (formally of the Big East) and the historical strength of Florida State (for the ACC). Neither of those conferences 'deserved' their automatic bids this year.
But when the last BCS contract was signed, it would have been stretch to say the MWC deserved a bid. But now Utah has 'earned' its way in twice, and TCU was one of the best 8 teams in the country in my opinion (and should have been given more national respect).
I think this is the right move by the MWC -- the iron is hot in trying to get into the Big Party. But I don't think anything will change. As MWC commissioner Craig Thompson points out, it's not a good time for change because the contracts are all signed and dotted at this point -- but the pressure for the BCS to open up its vaults to the MWC may never be better.
If I were to redesign the system, I would swap the Big East and MWC for automatic bids, or maybe just eliminate the Big East bid and open up another at-large bid. Either way, change is needed. But wouldn't the Big East fight anything like that? You bet, with a $17 million payout on the line. That's why I wouldn't count on any change for the 3-4 years at least. If the MWC can keep crashing the party, then change may be forced.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Elves and urgals and dragons, oh my!
Brisingr book review
Score: 8/10
For the uninitiated, Brisingr is the third book in the 'Inheritance cycle' by young writer Christopher Paolini. The first two books, Eragon and Eldest, were both big young adult fantasy hits. Brisingr has not disappointed, currently #114 on the Amazon.com book list months after its release. The book sold 550,000 copies on the first day of its release in September.
This is definitely my favorite in the series. The first two books (which I recently reread before reading Brisingr) are decent young adult books, but lack the kind of character depth I prefer in my fiction. In addition, the dialogue difference between the two books is remarkable; Paolini has really matured as a writer since he began his career as a 17 year-old.
The best passage in the book comes in the first half. One of the characters, an elf named Arya, is describing to the lead character Eragon what happened to her during her captivity in the first book. The passage is easily my favorite part of the novel, and the best thing Paolini has written in the three books. Its infused with such emotion and pathos, that it almost left me in tears after I read it, and I went back and read that part again.
If the rest of the book had matched that passage, Paolini would have created one of my favorite books of all time. But unfortunately Brisingr suffers from a couple of flaws. First, it's too long. Like many successful writers, it appears Paolini did not discipline himself and cut where needed. I don't mind long books, but a fantasy young adult fiction novel should not drag in the middle like this one did. Second, as good as that passage was, other major parts of the novel seemed to lack the style and emotion of other parts.
But these are minor criticisms. I loved the novel and would recommend it to anyone who's read the first two or who likes good fiction (especially fantasy). Paolini has created characters I care about, and his plots are interesting. There is little that is truly original in fantasy anymore, but Paolini has created a terrific world that wraps you up and carries into Alagaesia, a place you're not eager to leave.
Score: 8/10
For the uninitiated, Brisingr is the third book in the 'Inheritance cycle' by young writer Christopher Paolini. The first two books, Eragon and Eldest, were both big young adult fantasy hits. Brisingr has not disappointed, currently #114 on the Amazon.com book list months after its release. The book sold 550,000 copies on the first day of its release in September.
This is definitely my favorite in the series. The first two books (which I recently reread before reading Brisingr) are decent young adult books, but lack the kind of character depth I prefer in my fiction. In addition, the dialogue difference between the two books is remarkable; Paolini has really matured as a writer since he began his career as a 17 year-old.
The best passage in the book comes in the first half. One of the characters, an elf named Arya, is describing to the lead character Eragon what happened to her during her captivity in the first book. The passage is easily my favorite part of the novel, and the best thing Paolini has written in the three books. Its infused with such emotion and pathos, that it almost left me in tears after I read it, and I went back and read that part again.
If the rest of the book had matched that passage, Paolini would have created one of my favorite books of all time. But unfortunately Brisingr suffers from a couple of flaws. First, it's too long. Like many successful writers, it appears Paolini did not discipline himself and cut where needed. I don't mind long books, but a fantasy young adult fiction novel should not drag in the middle like this one did. Second, as good as that passage was, other major parts of the novel seemed to lack the style and emotion of other parts.
But these are minor criticisms. I loved the novel and would recommend it to anyone who's read the first two or who likes good fiction (especially fantasy). Paolini has created characters I care about, and his plots are interesting. There is little that is truly original in fantasy anymore, but Paolini has created a terrific world that wraps you up and carries into Alagaesia, a place you're not eager to leave.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bob Stoops doesn't need your help
Let me throw some Bob Stoops stats at you: 10 seasons. 109-24 won/loss record, including 68-14 in conference and 24-8 overall the last three seasons, and 27-10 over the 10 seasons against ranked opponents. One national title. 7 BCS bowls (tied for most ever with USC and Ohio State). 7 top 10 finishes.
But of course, here are the counter-numbers: Only third all-time among Oklahoma coaches all-time in winning percentage. 5 straight BCS bowl loses. Yeah, he's got a national title, but that was back in 2000; Florida has won it twice since then.
I've been meaning to write about this for weeks, but just got around to it. After Oklahoma's loss, many commentators, including Mark May on ESPN, called for Stoops to make changes to his program (ludicrous) and to his bowl preparations (maybe).
But look at his his 5 straight BCS loses. To Florida. To an underrated West Virginia team. To a very good Boise State team on a fluke play. Pounded by an awesome USC team with 200 NFL players on the roster. And a tough loss to LSU. Both of those last two were for the BCS title.
What school (besides maybe Florida and USC) wouldn't enthusiastically switch records with Oklahoma? (OK, maybe Oklahoma State or Texas fans would rather do anything besides switch with the Sooners, but you get my point.) If this was BYU or Purdue, we'd be building the guy a statue.
Shouldn't it be hard to win a national championship? If you get to that final game, you're going to be playing another great team. I don't want to attribute it to luck, but Oklahoma's consistency should be lauded, not derided.
So Bob Stoops if you're listening: Mark May has not idea what he's talking about. Keep doing exactly what you're doing.
But of course, here are the counter-numbers: Only third all-time among Oklahoma coaches all-time in winning percentage. 5 straight BCS bowl loses. Yeah, he's got a national title, but that was back in 2000; Florida has won it twice since then.
I've been meaning to write about this for weeks, but just got around to it. After Oklahoma's loss, many commentators, including Mark May on ESPN, called for Stoops to make changes to his program (ludicrous) and to his bowl preparations (maybe).
But look at his his 5 straight BCS loses. To Florida. To an underrated West Virginia team. To a very good Boise State team on a fluke play. Pounded by an awesome USC team with 200 NFL players on the roster. And a tough loss to LSU. Both of those last two were for the BCS title.
What school (besides maybe Florida and USC) wouldn't enthusiastically switch records with Oklahoma? (OK, maybe Oklahoma State or Texas fans would rather do anything besides switch with the Sooners, but you get my point.) If this was BYU or Purdue, we'd be building the guy a statue.
Shouldn't it be hard to win a national championship? If you get to that final game, you're going to be playing another great team. I don't want to attribute it to luck, but Oklahoma's consistency should be lauded, not derided.
So Bob Stoops if you're listening: Mark May has not idea what he's talking about. Keep doing exactly what you're doing.
Celtics: The Sky is falling! Wait, the Celtics will repeat
As a former sports writer, I understand the game. In order to find something to write about, it needs to seem important. So what if the NBA regular season is not a direct corollary to post-season success? When the Celtics dropped four straight (including getting killed by LeBron & Co.), the skeptics appeared, saying the Celtics need to sign so-and-so, or Doc Rivers needs to wake up, or whatever.
Now, the Celtics have righted the ship. But was the ship ever really in disarray? No. The Celtics were unlikely to win 70 games. They're just not that deep, and the Eastern Division possibly has the league's best three teams (and then has a steep drop off). The current Celtics are not the '86 Celtics (who also played in a top-heavy conference), or the '96 Bulls. They are not super deep (though some bench players are really starting to improve), and Doc Rivers is not, in my humble opinion, a great coach, only a good one.
So Celtic fans, relax. Are we bound for another title? Well, winning the East is not going to be easy. Cleveland will be very scary. Orlando is solid. Detroit could be dangerous. And does anyone want to face Dwayne Wade and the Heat?
My prediction today: Celtics face San Antonio in the finals, Boston in 6.
Now, the Celtics have righted the ship. But was the ship ever really in disarray? No. The Celtics were unlikely to win 70 games. They're just not that deep, and the Eastern Division possibly has the league's best three teams (and then has a steep drop off). The current Celtics are not the '86 Celtics (who also played in a top-heavy conference), or the '96 Bulls. They are not super deep (though some bench players are really starting to improve), and Doc Rivers is not, in my humble opinion, a great coach, only a good one.
So Celtic fans, relax. Are we bound for another title? Well, winning the East is not going to be easy. Cleveland will be very scary. Orlando is solid. Detroit could be dangerous. And does anyone want to face Dwayne Wade and the Heat?
My prediction today: Celtics face San Antonio in the finals, Boston in 6.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Hall of Fame head scratching
Some interesting articles have come out since it was announced that Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice would be the 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame class. I wanted to touch on two topics I found interesting.
First, why is it that Dale Murphy has not gotten a lot of Hall of Fame support? Joe Posnaski makes a pretty good case that Murphy as at least as valuable as Rice, and probably more Hall worthy than his AL contemporary. Now let me admit one thing -- I was (and am) a huge Dale Murphy fan. I loved watching him as a player, and he's one of the greatest Mormon athletes of all-time (which means something to me as a Mormon).
I'm not sure if he belongs in the hall or not. To me he's borderline, but he's a better candidate than Jim Rice. Over the course of his career, Murphy was probably slightly less valuable as a hitter than rice, but he's superior fielding ability pushes his value way past Rice. Posnaski details the numbers in the link above.
But why isn't he being mentioned in the discussion? Murphy received less than 12% of the vote, well shy of the 75% required, or Rice's 76.4%. Similar players, same era. Could it be the loud Boston media making Rice, 'the most feared hitter in the AL', more than he really was?
Don't misunderstand me. Murphy and Rice are both two of my favorite players of all-time. I grew up watching both of them, and rooting for both of them. But that's not a reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame. If Rice belongs (which I don't think he does), than so does Murphy.
The second topic is Mark McGwire. I find his exclusion from the Hall of Fame stupid. I won't go through all the numbers, but he led the league in adjusted OPS+ (a hitting stat that corrects for park effects and era effects) 4 times. And outside of his awful 1991 season, he was extremely valuable every other year until his final season in St. Louis. His career value vs. Jim Rice isn't even close.
Ah, but he's been tied to steroid era, probably only second to Barry Bonds as its poster boy. How could we allow a cheater like that into the Hall of Fame?
Easy. Because it's likely most of the players of his era (including many pitchers) were 'cheating' as he was. Does that make it OK or correct? No, but it sure changes the discussion for me.
So there's the problem with baseball's steroids era. We don't know who was using and who wasn't. And it's clear that so many were using I don't believe we can excuse the best of the era if they fall under that cloud.
Plus this all smells of hypocrisy. I believe sportswriters are as much to blame for baseball's steroid problems as anybody. If this many players were using, and it was so widespread in MLB clubhouses, why didn't these 'investigative journalists' figure it out? They had clubhouse access none of us have. And I remember in 1989 when the Boston fans chanted 'steroids' at Jose Canseco during a playoff series. We knew players were juicing then. Why couldn't these sportswriters figure it our?
The answer isn't an easy one, but let me offer up one explanation: the sportswriters, like the owners and fans, really didn't want to know. The game was going so well, and home run chases were a lot of fun. Why spoil that?
Please, voters, put McGwire into the Hall of Fame. That is, unless, we want to exclude every player from his era who is under any suspicion of performance enhancer use.
Also, there are a few other players who need to get voted in, including Tim Raines. Keith Law does a good job of making a case for him, and I couldn't agree more.
First, why is it that Dale Murphy has not gotten a lot of Hall of Fame support? Joe Posnaski makes a pretty good case that Murphy as at least as valuable as Rice, and probably more Hall worthy than his AL contemporary. Now let me admit one thing -- I was (and am) a huge Dale Murphy fan. I loved watching him as a player, and he's one of the greatest Mormon athletes of all-time (which means something to me as a Mormon).
I'm not sure if he belongs in the hall or not. To me he's borderline, but he's a better candidate than Jim Rice. Over the course of his career, Murphy was probably slightly less valuable as a hitter than rice, but he's superior fielding ability pushes his value way past Rice. Posnaski details the numbers in the link above.
But why isn't he being mentioned in the discussion? Murphy received less than 12% of the vote, well shy of the 75% required, or Rice's 76.4%. Similar players, same era. Could it be the loud Boston media making Rice, 'the most feared hitter in the AL', more than he really was?
Don't misunderstand me. Murphy and Rice are both two of my favorite players of all-time. I grew up watching both of them, and rooting for both of them. But that's not a reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame. If Rice belongs (which I don't think he does), than so does Murphy.
The second topic is Mark McGwire. I find his exclusion from the Hall of Fame stupid. I won't go through all the numbers, but he led the league in adjusted OPS+ (a hitting stat that corrects for park effects and era effects) 4 times. And outside of his awful 1991 season, he was extremely valuable every other year until his final season in St. Louis. His career value vs. Jim Rice isn't even close.
Ah, but he's been tied to steroid era, probably only second to Barry Bonds as its poster boy. How could we allow a cheater like that into the Hall of Fame?
Easy. Because it's likely most of the players of his era (including many pitchers) were 'cheating' as he was. Does that make it OK or correct? No, but it sure changes the discussion for me.
So there's the problem with baseball's steroids era. We don't know who was using and who wasn't. And it's clear that so many were using I don't believe we can excuse the best of the era if they fall under that cloud.
Plus this all smells of hypocrisy. I believe sportswriters are as much to blame for baseball's steroid problems as anybody. If this many players were using, and it was so widespread in MLB clubhouses, why didn't these 'investigative journalists' figure it out? They had clubhouse access none of us have. And I remember in 1989 when the Boston fans chanted 'steroids' at Jose Canseco during a playoff series. We knew players were juicing then. Why couldn't these sportswriters figure it our?
The answer isn't an easy one, but let me offer up one explanation: the sportswriters, like the owners and fans, really didn't want to know. The game was going so well, and home run chases were a lot of fun. Why spoil that?
Please, voters, put McGwire into the Hall of Fame. That is, unless, we want to exclude every player from his era who is under any suspicion of performance enhancer use.
Also, there are a few other players who need to get voted in, including Tim Raines. Keith Law does a good job of making a case for him, and I couldn't agree more.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
What's next for the Patriots
In a matter of days the Patriots have lost two key pieces to their recent success: Josh McDaniels taking over in Denver, and Scott Pioli taking the GM post in Kansas City.
I'm not really worried about McDaniels. Though I think he did a great job running this offense this season (and seems to be very good with QBs), I don't think the offense will be much worse without him, especially if Belichick takes over the play-calling duties. And really, do you think an offense with Tom Brady and Randy Moss really needs that talented an offensive coordinator? I could probably call the plays and the Pats would be in the top 5 offensively.
But Pioli? It scares me to death. It's impossible to know with the Patriots where the lines are and where Belichick's influence begins and ends. But by all reports, Pioli was integral to the awesome personnel success the Patriots have had over the past 8 years. I know Bill Simmons and others have been critical with the Patriots most recent drafts, but come on. You can't win every time in the gamble know as the draft, and certainly Pioli has proven himself the Chris Farley to Matt Millen's Jimmy Fallon. (I don't think that analogy makes much sense, but ever sense that idiot played 'the ultimate Sox fan', I make fun of him every chance I get. Equating him to Matt Millen is about as the worst sports insult you can make right now.)
Of course, I was the same guy who was really worried when Romeo and Charlie left. And though we haven't won a Super Bowl without them, we had a perfect season and have been very good since they left. And let's just say that the Cleveland Browns and probably Notre Dame woud like a mulligan on those hires.
So here's hoping Belicheck was making most of the personnel decisions over the past decade and we don't skip a beat. And let's hope Kansas City doesn't get too good too quickly.
I'm not really worried about McDaniels. Though I think he did a great job running this offense this season (and seems to be very good with QBs), I don't think the offense will be much worse without him, especially if Belichick takes over the play-calling duties. And really, do you think an offense with Tom Brady and Randy Moss really needs that talented an offensive coordinator? I could probably call the plays and the Pats would be in the top 5 offensively.
But Pioli? It scares me to death. It's impossible to know with the Patriots where the lines are and where Belichick's influence begins and ends. But by all reports, Pioli was integral to the awesome personnel success the Patriots have had over the past 8 years. I know Bill Simmons and others have been critical with the Patriots most recent drafts, but come on. You can't win every time in the gamble know as the draft, and certainly Pioli has proven himself the Chris Farley to Matt Millen's Jimmy Fallon. (I don't think that analogy makes much sense, but ever sense that idiot played 'the ultimate Sox fan', I make fun of him every chance I get. Equating him to Matt Millen is about as the worst sports insult you can make right now.)
Of course, I was the same guy who was really worried when Romeo and Charlie left. And though we haven't won a Super Bowl without them, we had a perfect season and have been very good since they left. And let's just say that the Cleveland Browns and probably Notre Dame woud like a mulligan on those hires.
So here's hoping Belicheck was making most of the personnel decisions over the past decade and we don't skip a beat. And let's hope Kansas City doesn't get too good too quickly.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Reevaluating BYU's season
Before I discuss BYU football, I wanted to point out something I would file under 'Public Official Using Sports to Get Publicity.' (See Congressional hearings on steriods for the best example. "Think about the children!")
The Utah Attorney General needs to get a life. In these lean economic times, do we need to spend tax payer dollars on a lawsuit like this? Granted he hasn't actually done it, but stop dude. I hate the BCS and I wish we had a playoff system, but the system has actually been pretty good to Utah, even if they didn't get a chance to play for the national championship twice. The school with the real beef is Boise State, undefeated and outside of the BCS games looking in.
Getting back to more important matters (namely BYU football), after watching Utah beat Alabama (which made me sick to my stomach) and watching TCU shut down one of the best offenses in the country, I want to temper the criticism I previously leveled against the team.
Why? Because this was, I believe after only looking for a little while, one of the best conference schedules we've ever played (though the non-conference schedule was pretty weak). Two of the top ten teams in the country played in the Mountain West (according to the Sagarin rankings and most observers). Arizona finished in the top 25. Yes, we lost to all three of those teams, but we were probably less talented than two of those teams (with the possible exception of Arizona).
So I would consider this season a success. The Cougars beat every team they should have beat, lost to the most even team we played (Arizona) and lost games to the two superior teams (TCU, Utah). And despite the loss of Collie, I think could be better on both sides of the ball next year. Granted, we'll need to be going against an awesome Oklahoma team and a pretty good Florida State team.
Despite all the jokes about the "Quest of perfection", I think the coaches and players had a good season.
The Utah Attorney General needs to get a life. In these lean economic times, do we need to spend tax payer dollars on a lawsuit like this? Granted he hasn't actually done it, but stop dude. I hate the BCS and I wish we had a playoff system, but the system has actually been pretty good to Utah, even if they didn't get a chance to play for the national championship twice. The school with the real beef is Boise State, undefeated and outside of the BCS games looking in.
Getting back to more important matters (namely BYU football), after watching Utah beat Alabama (which made me sick to my stomach) and watching TCU shut down one of the best offenses in the country, I want to temper the criticism I previously leveled against the team.
Why? Because this was, I believe after only looking for a little while, one of the best conference schedules we've ever played (though the non-conference schedule was pretty weak). Two of the top ten teams in the country played in the Mountain West (according to the Sagarin rankings and most observers). Arizona finished in the top 25. Yes, we lost to all three of those teams, but we were probably less talented than two of those teams (with the possible exception of Arizona).
So I would consider this season a success. The Cougars beat every team they should have beat, lost to the most even team we played (Arizona) and lost games to the two superior teams (TCU, Utah). And despite the loss of Collie, I think could be better on both sides of the ball next year. Granted, we'll need to be going against an awesome Oklahoma team and a pretty good Florida State team.
Despite all the jokes about the "Quest of perfection", I think the coaches and players had a good season.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Superhero movies saving the day
After I saw X-Men in May 2000, I had an interesting conversation with my friend Beth as we were coming out. I expressed my hope that this was the birth of an era of superhero films, similar to what Westerns had been for almost 30 years in the 20th century. Beth was skeptical, wondering if the success could be sustained. Obviously it has been, but let's look at box office results for superhero/comic book films since then.
2001: Nothing yet. With X-Men's success in 2000, Hollywood hadn't had the chance to copy.
2002: Spider-Man comes on the scene as the top money-maker of the year. A sub-par Men in Black II (which comes from a comic book) finishes 8th. Road to Perdition (not a superhero movie, but based on a graphic novel) comes in 24th.
2003: X2: X-Men United comes in sixth. It's clearly now a secondary franchise compared to Spider-Man. The Hulk (pretty flawed film) comes in 13th, north of $100 million.
2004: Spider-Man 2 makes $374 million, losing the top spot to Shrek 2. The Incredibles (though not sourced from a comic book) comes in 5th. You could make the argument that The Incredibles is actually the best execution of classic superheroes in a film to date (and I would make that argument). And let's pretend Catwoman never happened, OK people?
2005: Batman Begins inexplicably comes in 8th, behind some lame films including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and King Kong. What were Americans thinking? Batman Begins is one of the greatest films of all-time people. Fantastic Four is 13th, mainly because of males 13-30 going to see Jessica Alba multiple times in a skin-tight outfit.
2006: X-Men: The Last Stand enjoys it's best box-office success despite being the worst film in the franchise (thank you Mr. Ratner). Superman Returns (a pretty weak film) also breaks the top 6.
2007: Spider-Man 3 gets revenge against Shrek the Third. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (which I've never seen) makes 'only' $131 million. Ghost Rider makes $115 million domestically, taking in less than Blades of Glory. TMNT (the animated film) gets only $54 million, making it the 7th best animated film of the year (ouch).
2008: It will forever be known as the year of the superhero. The Dark Knight opens to $158 million and easily becomes the most successful film of the year (but 'only' 27th all-time when you adjust for inflaction). Iron Man is #2, and Hancock is #4. The Incredible Hulk barely eclipses the first film (although it was a ton better), and Hellboy II: The Golden Army does better than the first Hellboy, but disappoints (as far as box office return is concerned).
So what am I trying to say? We're in a golden era of superhero flicks, which is totally awesome for a geek like me. And we have a bunch more coming, including X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 2009); Iron Man 2 (May 2010); The First Avenger: Captain America (May 2011); and the one I've been waiting 20 years for, The Avengers (July 2011).
I'm glad that Beth's prediction proved wrong, that now some of the most successful films of this decade were superhero flics, including a couple that are also some of the decade's best films (including Batman Begins, X-Men, and Iron Man). Here's hoping we get another decade full of costumed, crime-fighting fun.
Box office info from Box Office Mojo.
2001: Nothing yet. With X-Men's success in 2000, Hollywood hadn't had the chance to copy.
2002: Spider-Man comes on the scene as the top money-maker of the year. A sub-par Men in Black II (which comes from a comic book) finishes 8th. Road to Perdition (not a superhero movie, but based on a graphic novel) comes in 24th.
2003: X2: X-Men United comes in sixth. It's clearly now a secondary franchise compared to Spider-Man. The Hulk (pretty flawed film) comes in 13th, north of $100 million.
2004: Spider-Man 2 makes $374 million, losing the top spot to Shrek 2. The Incredibles (though not sourced from a comic book) comes in 5th. You could make the argument that The Incredibles is actually the best execution of classic superheroes in a film to date (and I would make that argument). And let's pretend Catwoman never happened, OK people?
2005: Batman Begins inexplicably comes in 8th, behind some lame films including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and King Kong. What were Americans thinking? Batman Begins is one of the greatest films of all-time people. Fantastic Four is 13th, mainly because of males 13-30 going to see Jessica Alba multiple times in a skin-tight outfit.
2006: X-Men: The Last Stand enjoys it's best box-office success despite being the worst film in the franchise (thank you Mr. Ratner). Superman Returns (a pretty weak film) also breaks the top 6.
2007: Spider-Man 3 gets revenge against Shrek the Third. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (which I've never seen) makes 'only' $131 million. Ghost Rider makes $115 million domestically, taking in less than Blades of Glory. TMNT (the animated film) gets only $54 million, making it the 7th best animated film of the year (ouch).
2008: It will forever be known as the year of the superhero. The Dark Knight opens to $158 million and easily becomes the most successful film of the year (but 'only' 27th all-time when you adjust for inflaction). Iron Man is #2, and Hancock is #4. The Incredible Hulk barely eclipses the first film (although it was a ton better), and Hellboy II: The Golden Army does better than the first Hellboy, but disappoints (as far as box office return is concerned).
So what am I trying to say? We're in a golden era of superhero flicks, which is totally awesome for a geek like me. And we have a bunch more coming, including X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 2009); Iron Man 2 (May 2010); The First Avenger: Captain America (May 2011); and the one I've been waiting 20 years for, The Avengers (July 2011).
I'm glad that Beth's prediction proved wrong, that now some of the most successful films of this decade were superhero flics, including a couple that are also some of the decade's best films (including Batman Begins, X-Men, and Iron Man). Here's hoping we get another decade full of costumed, crime-fighting fun.
Box office info from Box Office Mojo.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Chicks dig vampires
Twilight Movie Review
Score: 6/10
Now before any of you guys out there ask that my man-card be revoked, keep this in mind: My wife is eight months pregnant. If you need further explanation, you've either never been married to a pregnant woman or you're an idiot.
Now getting to the movie, it was decent. The first and third acts were enjoyable. The action was better than I expected. The acting was decent (with some very good supporting performances mixed in). And it helps that they started with a good story.
So why couldn't I rate the movie higher? Because the middle section of the movie made me laugh out loud in the theater. I received death glances from two 14-year-old girls who didn't like my reaction with their beloved Edward on the screen. But seriously: It was like a combining a Carpenters song with a scene from the Buffy TV show, and that is in no way a compliment.
Otherwise though, I enjoyed it. If I am going to have to endure 20 minutes of teenage love angst, at least I get a fight between two high-powered vampires at the end.
I had heard a lot about poor special effects, but they weren't that bad. Yeah, it more resembled a high budget TV show than a big Hollywood production, but this movie isn't about special effects. It's about making females age 12-99 fall in love with vampires. And seeing that we were in a half-full theater in Appleton, Wis., six weeks after it came out, I'd say the filmmakers did their job, even I'm not going to rush out and buy the DVD (unless my wife requests it).
Score: 6/10
Now before any of you guys out there ask that my man-card be revoked, keep this in mind: My wife is eight months pregnant. If you need further explanation, you've either never been married to a pregnant woman or you're an idiot.
Now getting to the movie, it was decent. The first and third acts were enjoyable. The action was better than I expected. The acting was decent (with some very good supporting performances mixed in). And it helps that they started with a good story.
So why couldn't I rate the movie higher? Because the middle section of the movie made me laugh out loud in the theater. I received death glances from two 14-year-old girls who didn't like my reaction with their beloved Edward on the screen. But seriously: It was like a combining a Carpenters song with a scene from the Buffy TV show, and that is in no way a compliment.
Otherwise though, I enjoyed it. If I am going to have to endure 20 minutes of teenage love angst, at least I get a fight between two high-powered vampires at the end.
I had heard a lot about poor special effects, but they weren't that bad. Yeah, it more resembled a high budget TV show than a big Hollywood production, but this movie isn't about special effects. It's about making females age 12-99 fall in love with vampires. And seeing that we were in a half-full theater in Appleton, Wis., six weeks after it came out, I'd say the filmmakers did their job, even I'm not going to rush out and buy the DVD (unless my wife requests it).
Friday, January 2, 2009
No Starbury in Boston please
I can't believe the Celtics are even considering signing Stephon Marbury, a player who has killed several very good teams, and has a record of bringing a team down after a trade. Minnesota was just as good (and futile in the playoffs) after he demanded his way out. The Nets went to the finals the two seasons after he left. And the Suns went from a joke to a contender, mainly by switching out Nash for Marbury.
He just isn't as good as his raw numbers indicate. Who wouldn't want a PG who's averaged 19.7 ppg, 7.8 apg, and 3.0 rpg over their career? Me, that's who. Point guards need to make teammates better, and I've seen no evidence in his 12 seasons in the NBA that Marbury is good for a team, except maybe a fantasy squad. And to get a little geeky here, he's never finished in the top 10 in player efficiency rating. For comparison, Nash has done this a couple times. He has never been an elite point guard, no matter what he might say.
So please Mr. Ainge, don't get sucked in. Rando doesn't need another primadonna PG sitting behind him on the bench (see Cassell, Sam). Do the Celtics need another perimeter player? Yes, but having Cassell and Marbury on the same team is like inviting Kobayashi and Joey Chesnut to your BBQ.
Here's hoping wisdom prevails.
He just isn't as good as his raw numbers indicate. Who wouldn't want a PG who's averaged 19.7 ppg, 7.8 apg, and 3.0 rpg over their career? Me, that's who. Point guards need to make teammates better, and I've seen no evidence in his 12 seasons in the NBA that Marbury is good for a team, except maybe a fantasy squad. And to get a little geeky here, he's never finished in the top 10 in player efficiency rating. For comparison, Nash has done this a couple times. He has never been an elite point guard, no matter what he might say.
So please Mr. Ainge, don't get sucked in. Rando doesn't need another primadonna PG sitting behind him on the bench (see Cassell, Sam). Do the Celtics need another perimeter player? Yes, but having Cassell and Marbury on the same team is like inviting Kobayashi and Joey Chesnut to your BBQ.
Here's hoping wisdom prevails.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
What happened to the Cougars in 2008?
I've thought a lot about the BYU football season since the season's depressing end. We played four quality teams this year (TCU, Air Force, Utah and Arizona) and lost to three of them. A good season? Yes. A great season? Hardly.
Jay Drew of the Salt Lake Tribune outlines some reasons here for why the Cougars seem to fade down the stretch, but I have my own three reasons.
1. Max Hall is in love with his arm. It became clear in the second half of the season that Hall was trying to squeeze in throws he had no business throwing. When good defenses tried to shut down Collie and Pitta, he was neutralized. Reed's injury hurt him, but even with Reed healthy in the Las Vegas Bowl, Hall looked mediocre.
2. The running game was not good enough. BYU was 73rd in the country in rushing, and had a mediocre 4.1 yards per carry. Though this is somewhat effected by sacks, at the end of the day, the running game was not good enough to take pressure off Hall in the big games. For example, we had just 45 yards against TCU (when you take out the sacks) on 22 carries.
Part of this was due to the 'slump' of Unga. Sometimes during the second half of the season he would dance around instead of running through people. Dude, you're bigger than most d-linemen. Knock some people over. He's not fast enough to beat people that way. I also wish Vakapuna could have remained a 2nd TB and not had to fill in at FB. I thought he actually run better this season than Unga (granted on a lot fewer carries).
3. The defense isn't very good, especially against the pass. Since 1997, our defensive back play has been poor. Either we have to play back and teams get 15 yard chunks, or we press and get killed deep. This has been a consistent problem under Mendenhall (and his predecesor). Mendenhall is supposed to be defensive coach. With the schedule we played, we should have had a top 30 defense, instead of a top 60 defense. Utah got more yards against us than they averaged against the likes of SDSU, New Mexico and Wyoming.
Do I agree with Jay Drew that the program might have plateaued? No. I think Mendenhall is the real deal, but the coaches were the ones in a slump more than anyone else. Too many mistakes, too little creativity on both sides of the ball. Hopefully the can improve the team to bring the conference championship where it belongs.
Jay Drew of the Salt Lake Tribune outlines some reasons here for why the Cougars seem to fade down the stretch, but I have my own three reasons.
1. Max Hall is in love with his arm. It became clear in the second half of the season that Hall was trying to squeeze in throws he had no business throwing. When good defenses tried to shut down Collie and Pitta, he was neutralized. Reed's injury hurt him, but even with Reed healthy in the Las Vegas Bowl, Hall looked mediocre.
2. The running game was not good enough. BYU was 73rd in the country in rushing, and had a mediocre 4.1 yards per carry. Though this is somewhat effected by sacks, at the end of the day, the running game was not good enough to take pressure off Hall in the big games. For example, we had just 45 yards against TCU (when you take out the sacks) on 22 carries.
Part of this was due to the 'slump' of Unga. Sometimes during the second half of the season he would dance around instead of running through people. Dude, you're bigger than most d-linemen. Knock some people over. He's not fast enough to beat people that way. I also wish Vakapuna could have remained a 2nd TB and not had to fill in at FB. I thought he actually run better this season than Unga (granted on a lot fewer carries).
3. The defense isn't very good, especially against the pass. Since 1997, our defensive back play has been poor. Either we have to play back and teams get 15 yard chunks, or we press and get killed deep. This has been a consistent problem under Mendenhall (and his predecesor). Mendenhall is supposed to be defensive coach. With the schedule we played, we should have had a top 30 defense, instead of a top 60 defense. Utah got more yards against us than they averaged against the likes of SDSU, New Mexico and Wyoming.
Do I agree with Jay Drew that the program might have plateaued? No. I think Mendenhall is the real deal, but the coaches were the ones in a slump more than anyone else. Too many mistakes, too little creativity on both sides of the ball. Hopefully the can improve the team to bring the conference championship where it belongs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)