The Nightmare Scenario: Update

Favregate looked like it might get wrapped up over the weekend. But good 'ol Brett decided he was going to further demolish any popularity GM Ted Thompson may have had by asking if he would be welcome at training camp. Of course, Thompson had to say no, so the saga goes on. Now I'm not exactly sitting on the edge of my seat to see how this ends, but I did see one fantastic post on the Sporting Blog today. They had gotten the folks at EA Sports to put Favre on a couple of teams mentioned in trade rumors and then play out the '09 season. Far cooler than the pointless computer generated stats is this picture of Favre in a Vikings uni handing off to Purple Jesus...

Turning Stone Golf Review

I needed to put 24 hours between me and my final round at Turning Stone before I tried to blog about the experience. Now that I've had some time to reflect, here it is:

Day 1 - Atunyote
The phrase that I keep using to describe Atunyote is "over the top." From the moment you pull up to the imposing wooden gates at the entrance to the course, the sensory overload is ridiculous. The perfectly manicured practice facility, the gorgeous plantation-style clubhouse, the white coverall clad forecaddies all serve to remind the average golfer that that they are definitely playing out of their league. And that's before setting foot on the first tee. The course itself is, if nothing else, very nice to look at. Rolling, checkerboard fairways of intense shades of green look smoother than the greens at your local muni. But for all of it's splendor, the course relies heavily on length and sand to keep scores out of the basement. Fringed with beautiful pine and hardwoods on the front nine, the back is noticeably lacking in mature timber and draws on centrally placed water features for design focus. The experience of playing a course like Atunyote is so overwhelming that a second round may be warranted just to gain a better appreciation for the course itself after a first time through with one's head in the clouds.
Score - 8 out of 10. Beautiful layout and royal treatment. Lacks the name brand significance and enduring PGA tour cred of an Augusta National, Torrey Pines, Pebble Beach, or TPC Sawgrass.

Day 1 - Sandstone Hollow
After an early afternoon round at Atunyote on Friday, we were still pumped up and decided to play Turning Stone's executive par 3 course. It is unlike any nine hole, par-3 course I have ever played. It is challenging, extremely well maintained and has the feel of a much larger private course. The course was near-deserted when we arrived and the foxes and rabbits roaming the grounds gave the impression of playing our own private wooded course. The sand traps are prevalent and punishing, as are the low-lying marsh areas that must be carried to reach many of holes. Believing that Sandstone was a typical pitch and putt, we foolishly decided this was an ideal location for a two-club challenge. In reality, I would have enjoyed myself a great deal more with the better half of my bag along for the ride. Andy and I chose to walk Sandstone while Mike and Matt rode. The scenery is beautiful, but its less than friendly walking distance reflects the idea that Sandstone is meant to play like a full size course.
Score - 9 out 10 (for an executive course). This course was exceptional in the aesthetic appeal and challenge it presented in a 27 shot par package.

Day 2 - Kaluhyat
As much as I'm trying to repress my memories of Saturday, I can't neglect reflecting on my experience playing Kaluhyat. Simply put, this course is extremely hard. It is not suitable for the casual golfer. If you tend to spray left or right off the tee on occasion, you will lose your ball. If you hit worm burners off the tee, you will lose your ball. If your shot placement with your mid and short irons is anything but rock solid, you will lose your ball. From my perspective the two most noticeable features about this course are the ever-present hazards off the tee and the ridiculous length of each hole. Every tee shot must be relatively straight, with decent loft and carry at least 150 yards, or it will be lost. The length of the course was exacerbated by the soggy conditions on the fairway. My general impression is that the sand is not as vicious on Kaluhyat as it is on Atunyote and Shenendoah, simply because there are so many "natural" course elements in which to lose a ball or end up in jail. I have no desire to play Kaluhyat again any time in the near future.
Score - 6 out of 10. Beautifully crafted in low-lying marsh and meadow environs. Punishing tee locations and narrow fairways force players to follow a particular path to the hole, or else. Little opportunity for creativity or risk reward propositions. Mildly soggy fairways.

Day 3 - Shenendoah
I shot my best round of the weekend on Shenendoah and, generally speaking, had the best time out of the whole weekend on Shenendoah. As a result, I would love to give it a score right up there with Atunyote. But I can't. In fact, I can't even say I would recommend the course to a friend. Why? Because the fairways were slop. Squishy, soupy, saturated fairways made what could be a beautiful golf course, absolutely maddening. I know that there are those individuals who will say, "but they got so much rain, it's not their fault!" As a matter of fact, members of my foursome expressed that very sentiment. But here's the rub: When someone plays a resort course and ponies up the exorbitant greens fee for the privilege, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES. Awfully dry this season? Time to invest in better sprinkler coverage. Bugs driving you nuts near that island green? They've got chemicals for that. Fairways playing like a wading pool? Time to address your drainage. A course as long as Shenendoah can be intimidating without any extenuating circumstances, but when not a single shot is capable of producing roll, that length just gets frustrating. As a golfer, I know that any 18 holes is always better than the office. But as a consumer, I want to know why I'm shelling out full price for swamped fairways that I will inevitably have to trudge across all day because I can't take my cart off the path.
Score - 3 out of 10. Lots of potential, but the experience is ruined by inexcusable fairway conditions for a resort course.

The Nightmare Scenario?

Yesterday as I was driving up to Rochester and flipping radio stations along the way, I stopped on the Sirius NFL station to listen to Sirius Blitz for a while. Jim Miller and Solomon Wilcots were discussing Favregate and Miller referred to the possibility of Favre ending up in Minnesota as "the nightmare scenario" for the packers. Jim's back and forth with Wilcots suggested that both personalities felt that Favre ending up a Viking would lead to the undoing of existence as we know it. A true doomsday event.

I agree that it would be embarrassing for Packers management to see Favre sign with an NFC rival and then lose to that rival. The Green Bay fans will immediately question the decision to trade or release Favre in favor of putting Aaron Rodgers under center. But starting fresh this year with Rodgers is the right decision whether Favre wants to play or not. Favre's gunslinger tactics have always made him a high risk-high reward player at QB, and after 17 years in the league, it's time for Green Bay to roll the dice on a new signal caller. Particularly while they have the supporting cast to make their new starter effective immediately.

Whether you agree that it's time for Favre to move on from Green Bay, I don't think there's a legitimate debate that this situation is simply a reflection of the current state of professional sports. Iconic players do not spend their entire careers with a single team any longer. Whether it's for more money, personal issues, increased playing time or the chance to win a championship, stars are no longer faithful to a single city. That doesn't make them bad people. And I think most fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.

When you think of the biggest rivalry in sports, what comes to mind? Probably Red Sox and Yankees. There is no love lost between the respective fan communities of these two organizations. Yet when Johnny Damon left the Red Sox and joined the hated Yankees, the world did not end. Damon was a highly visible, much beloved member of the curse-breaking 2004 Sox. And when he visits Fenway wearing the Yankees uni, he is not reviled. The rivalry between the Packers and the Vikings is not nearly as rabid. So why would Favre's defection be such a tragedy?

I'm of the opinion that if Favre does indeed return to Football, Minnesota is the right team. It features a West coast offense, coaching personnel Favre is familiar with and all the components of a highly successful team, with the notable exception of a solid QB. But unlike Jim Miller, I wasn't a mediocre QB is the NFL for 4 seasons. So what do I know?

Best Ball Draft Review

I spend a couple of minutes every few days trolling the discussion boards on the ESPN Fantasy Football site for interesting leagues. I'm not a big fan of the "pick your favorite NFL or college team" leagues, but every once in a while somebody comes up with something interesting. So when I saw a "Best Ball" league, I was interested. The concept is based on the common golf variation where two or more players use the best individual score on each hole to come up with the low round. Transferred to Fantasy Football, the concept goes something like this: Sixteen teams draft a full team. After the draft, the teams are randomly paired off. The pairings play each other throughout the season and the best position from each pairing counts. So if we start one QB, and my partner has Peyton Manning and he scores 25 points, and I have Philip Rivers and he scores 12 points, Peyton's score counts. I thought this was a really cool concept, so I joined the league. The draft was last night at 8PM. Despite all of my practice and obsession, I wasn't prepared for a 16 team draft (I ended up with the 13th pick). Despite the shock, I think I drafted a damn good team for a 16 team league(Philip Rivers, Marion Barber, Maurice Jones-Drew, Rashard Mendenhall, Ryan Torain, Joey Galloway, Roy Williams, Donte Stallworth, Antonio Gates, Titans D/ST, Josh Scobee and assorted other filler).

And how did I manage a halfway decent roster in such a deep league? I followed my rules! I went RB/RB in rounds 1 and 2 and I didn't grab a QB until round 6 (might have been one round too late). I didn't take a D/ST until round 14 and I can tell you EXACTLY why I picked each player. Stick to the rules and it'll all work out.

Following the draft I got paired up with an owner that had not drafted quite as well. But what he lacked in roster, he made up for by brokering a dirt cheap trade for Peyton Manning today. Our combined team is now VERY solid. Of course, with the regular season over a month away, the post-draft enthusiasm will wane before too long. But it's still fun to get into the mix for a little while. I'm willing to manage four teams MAX this season. This league makes one, IDI two, friends and family league 3 (that one is up in the air). So I could potentially take on one more league. But unless I find a keeper looking for replacement owners, or I can get another league going with people I know, I think I'll stick with three.

More updates to come, but Ben's fantasy season is definitely underway.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight

*Spoiler Alert*

Yesterday afternoon Emily and I went to see The Dark Knight at Ballston Mall. Most of the reviews I've read so far have been glowing, and their adulation focuses on the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. I agree that Ledger's take on the role was impressive, but there's a lot more to talk about here. So I'll acknowledge that his Joker was phenomenal, and move on to some other observations:

-I was surprised that Bruce Wayne has essentially developed an additional persona. In earlier incarnations of the Batman franchise, there is Bruce Wayne (billionaire playboy) and there is batman. In Christopher Nolan's universe, there is Bruce Wayne (brooding, intelligent, savvy, sincere and only shared with Albert and Rachel), Bruce Wayne (obnoxious billionaire playboy fit for public consumption), and Batman. I am concerned that because there are now three personas, none of them received the appropriate screen time for any real character development.
-I was a little disappointed in Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent. After Tommy Lee Jones' over-the-top portrayal of at the Dent/Two Face role in the 1995 catastrophe "Batman Forever," I questioned whether the role could ever be played convincingly on film. This is supposed to be an incorruptible public servant, who succumbs to psychosis following his deforming accident. That's a tough combination to sell on screen. And Eckhart wasn't the man to do it. Whereas Dent is the "White Knight" and Two Face is a madman bent on revenge, Eckhart's best work has been where he is permitted to walk a fine line between good and evil. He plays en exceptional slimy individual with a nice-guy exterior (see Thank You for Smoking), but leaves something to be desired when working both extremes.
-What happened to the Rachel Dawes character? I'm not talking about Katie Holmes transmogrifying into Maggie Gyllenhaal in two short years. I'm referring to the fact that this character was reduced very quickly to the role of damsel in distress, by which point the audience couldn't care less that she got blown up. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a FAR more dynamic actress than Katie Holmes and that was completely neglected in this film. In addition, Gyllenhaal has the potential to be a hottie on screen (see Secretary or Stranger than Fiction). Yet she comes across as dowdy through most of the movie. What gives?
-Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman have become the heart of the franchise. Bale may be the star, but these three actors are the dramatic firepower that make the films worth watching.
-It's a theme that continues to play out in the superhero movies: The public's fickle relationship with their guardians. Spiderman/Batman/Superman is a good guy, no he's a bad guy, no he's a good guy, no... I am so freakin' sick of this melodrama getting dropped into superhero flicks to fill out flimsy plots. If a guy, with or without the gift or super powers, regularly saves lives, thwarts super criminals and generally makes life safer, then give him a break. As an audience, we love these characters for the righteousness they represent. So why does the "general public" in these films have so much trouble resolving their ambivalence? To the future directors of superhero movies: Knock it off! Everybody but the villain loves the hero. Act accordingly.

Overall, I was impressed with The Dark Knight, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I did Batman Begins. Perhaps that's because Batman Begins did so much to raise everyone's estimation of the Batman franchise. But I also believe that Nolan's first film was less conflicted and easier to enjoy.

Turbulent British Open

I spent a couple of minutes watching the British Open this morning, and I was absolutely loving it. The wind is a constant 37 mph, which is wreaking havoc on just about everyone's game. Unless Greg Norman and KJ Choi can reign in the bogies, it looks like Simon Wakefield's clubhouse +5 will be the score to beat going into the final round. And conditions really are poor. Each pairing is averaging about 27 minutes on the 10th, where the wind across the green constantly causes the ball to threaten to tear loose and begin rolling. I really can't blame Sandy Lyle and Rich Beem for throwing in the towel halfway through the first round. It's punishing out there, but it makes for great TV. And that's fortunate. Because the first Tiger-less major in what seems like forever really needed some extra juice to prove that the golf world can survive without it's leading player.

Two additional observations:
-Royal Birkdale is one of the courses included in Tiger Woods '07. It's kind of weird watching these guys play on a British course that I've never visited, yet seems eerily familiar.
-Where the hell did Greg Norman come from? I thought this guy was done golfing. He had gone all GQ: His own clothing label, wine, course architecture firm, etc. Now he marries Chris Evert and suddenly he's leading the British Open? I seem to recall Andre Agassi becoming a resurgent, bald dynamo following his marriage to Steffi Graff. It's nice to see that tying the knot with aging female tennis stars can improve athletic performance across the sports spectrum. Note to Tom Brady: Forget Giselle. Get with Monica Seles and that next Super Bowl is in the bag.

Draft Strategy: The Next Evolution

I've continued obsessing about my FF drafting strategy and I've come up with a few more thoughts to guide my selections:
-No QB's in rounds 1 and 2. I will not be swayed by the Golden Boy, nor will I be tempted to worry about Peyton's knee. I am absolutely picking a RB round 1 and a RB or WR round 2. There will be plenty of QB's to choose from in rounds 3, 4 and beyond.
-Portis is not all bad. For some reason I've been down on Clinton Portis this year. I think it's because Portis was dissed so frequently in last year's draft. The guy is quick, has good hands and gets most of the carries. He's a legit alternative to Marion Barber with a 7-10 pick.
-Stop with the early D/ST picks. I somehow cannot help myself from grabbing a D/ST in round 8-10. To prevent myself from making this mistake on draft day, I am trying to build a better list of desirable rookies and sleepers to look to once my starters are picked.
-Know why I picked every single player. I've looked over my rosters from previous years and there are some guys with no upside. Not now, not ever. So, new rule: If I can't state one really compelling reason to draft a player, I'm not taking him.

Overall, the thing that was lacking from my previous drafts was discipline. But this year, I'm turning all that around. I want to have teams that either look great on paper, or can be readily defended if otherwise.

It's Nice to Live Where Your Vote Doesn't Count

I want to start this post by saying that EVERYONE should vote. No exceptions. I believe that voting, regardless of who you vote for, grants you the right to bitch about our elected officials. But if you don't participate in the process, then suck it up and shut your mouth. I don't care what you think.

Now, having said that, I acknowledge that it can be frustrating to vote in general elections in a state that is strongly red or blue. If your candidate is of the appropriate political bent for your neck of the woods, their success is a foregone conclusion. And people like to vote for the underdog. We enjoy the thought that maybe it's our ballot that gets the win. On the flip side, if you know there's no way your candidate is ever going to win your state, then casting your vote is like spitting in the wind. So from a motivational perspective, it's good to live in a battleground state.

And according to the politicos at CNN.com, I now reside in a battleground state(Virginia). But because my living arrangement here is temporary, I will still be voting in NY via an absentee ballot. As a result, I'm getting the worst of both worlds. See, I'm going to be casting my vote in a Democratic stronghold (NY), where there is a certain inevitability to the electoral outcome. But I'm living in a battleground state, where I will be bombarded with political ads for Barack Obama and John McCain for the next 4 months.

Now if I had to decide between living and voting in a battleground state and being in the crossfire of massive partisan ad-buys, or living and voting in a very blue state where the outcome is certain, but television remains ad free, well... I think I'd rather be in New York. Sure it would be nice to feel like a true decision-maker, but it seems like my candidates never win anyway.

Context Sensitive

I was browsing CNN.com this afternoon and saw that both the Obama and McCain campaigns had spoken out about a controversial New Yorker cover. The cover, pictured at left, shows the Obamas fist-bumping while dressed like militants, with a US flag in the fireplace. Both campaigns have condemned the cover as tasteless and offensive. And it sure looks that way.

The New Yorker responded that the cover was intended as satire. Their intention was to mock the perception of Obama that the right-wing propaganda machine is trying to create. Well why didn't you say so? Suddenly that cover is pretty darn funny. Too bad that no one at the New Yorker thought a caption might add some MUCH needed context to the image.

It just seems hard to believe that a group of editors could have that cartoon sitting on their desktops for a month and not one of them thought, ever so briefly, "You know what? The average American may not get this without a witty caption or one-liner."

Is the magazine publishing industry in such dire straights that these screwups are becoming commonplace? Let's ask the Golfweek editors who let fly with a noose on their cover after Kelly Tilghman's "lynching" remark. I know that it's tough selling glossy paper in a digital world. But that's no excuse for this type of mistake.

iPhone 3G: Dodged the Bullet?

As I indicated in my post yesterday, today was the momentous launch of of the iPhone 3G. And I was pretty bummed I wasn't eligible to pick one up. But following widespread reports of long lines, significant wait times and serious difficulties activating the phones, I think I may be better off without an iPhone. At least for the moment. As early adopters of the the iPhone were burned last year by the rapid price decrease, so it seems that buying straight off the assembly line may not be the way to go.

In addition, there is a rising tide of vocal dissatisfaction around the globe at the ridiculous price of the data packages for the new iPhone. I would not be surprised if either the cost of the phone, or the cost of the data plan saw a reduction prior to the holiday season, when I'll be eligible to get one. Until then, I'll sit back, wait and watch.

iPhone Dreams

The news is almost a month old, but on Friday Apple is releasing the new 3G version of the iPhone. I've been saying since the first iPhone was introduced, that as soon as Apple offered a version that ran on a 3G network and had Exchange support, I'd buy it. Now both these features have been added to to product and the price has dropped to $199 as well. So I decided the time was right to do away with my AT&T 8525 brick of a smartphone and make the plunge. One problem: When the original iPhone was introduced, AT&T allowed subscribers, regardless of where they were in their current plan, to make the switch to the iPhone with a new 2 year contract. But that was when AT&T wasn't subsidizing the cost of the iPhone.

Now, a year later, the drastic reduction in the price of the iPhone 3G is directly related to AT&T subsidizing about $200 of the cost. And since AT&T is footing the bill, if you're mid-contract with any handset other than the iPhone (which they didn't originally subsidize) then you're out of luck. You can either wait until you are eligible for an upgrade, or pay the unsubsidized price for the iPhone ($399 for the 8 GB model).

Regrettably, I'm not eligible for an upgrade until November of '08, and I'm not stupid enough to pay $400 now for a product that could see another price drop by the time I'm eligible for the discounted price. So for the moment, I'm stuck with the handset I've got and iPhone dreams.

Suze Orman on Oprah: Why I don't Watch Daytime TV

Yesterday afternoon I took my laptop into the bedroom between meetings and immediately regretted it. Emily was watching Oprah and Suze Ormanwas "counseling" couples who had gotten over their heads with consumer debt. I only saw one segment before I fled back to my office. The couple in question had $350,000 in debt, combined annual income of $140,000 and were expecting their first child. Of the 350k, 200k represented student loans, which they were struggling to repay. The rest was going towards their two Lexuses (Lexi? What is the plural form of Lexus?) (the guy referred to the car as "his baby" during the setup clip), a 900 DVD movie collection and a generally pimped out lifestyle. The collection agencies were calling all day, every day and these two had stopped picking up the phone.

Enter Suze Orman, the TV financial "expert." I've never seen Orman's daily show, but if her appearance on Oprah was indicative of the advice she usually gives, I fear for the financially uninformed viewers of the world. Here is a short summary of her "advice":
-"That car is your baby? No, that's your baby (points at wife's belly). That's your baby. That's your baby. That's... life(Oprah audience claps politely. Even they're not buying this crap)." Suze keeps ranting about the "baby" comment, and finally gets around to telling the guy to sell his cars, which he sheepishly admits he had already planned to do. No discussion of what car models or financing options might be more economical for a growing family.

-The DVD collection: "Get an iPod, copy the DVD's to the iPod. Sell the DVD's on ebay." Great idea Suze. Financial solvency through copyright infringement. When you purchase a movie or music album, you have a right to duplicate that media for private viewing on other mediums or for "backup" purposes. But once you sell the physical media, you can no longer claim ownership and any copies you made are considered pirated. Is the guy going to get busted for that type of infraction? No. Should a nationally syndicated financial advice guru be advocating movie piracy? Also no.

-Oprah promises that Suze will tell everyone how to do a personal financial checkup when she gets back from the break. Commercial break. Oprah comes back and sets up Suze to explain how to to the personal financial checkup. Suze promptly gets lost in the woods. "Oprah, you know that all the issues we've dealt with today are a result of trying to impress people we don't even know or like." No kidding, Suze? Have you met the average American lately. Of course we're trying to impress people we don't know. We are blasted hundreds of times a day with the idea that our car, house, clothes, computer, MP3 player and riding lawnmower must be better than our neighbor's. Blaming our cultural mindset for the uninhibited spending of the folks on the program is a cheap shot.

-Now Oprah appears peeved that Suze has still not gotten into this financial checkup thing and prompts her again. Suze wanders further into the forest. "Whenever you make a financial decision, ask yourself: "Is it kind, is it necessary, is it true?" WHAT? I'm trying to frame that advice in terms of a decision to buy an expensive new consumer product, and frankly, "kind" and "true" are not adjectives that factor into that decision. Oprah finally gives up and wraps the show by offering up a website (NOT associated with Orman) for viewers to go to and find out how to perform a financial checkup.

And there you have it. This couple has been belittled on national TV, and they are walking away without any kind of plan to get themselves out of trouble. Was it worth it just to sit on Oprah's soundstage for 15 minutes? This is why I can't stand daytime TV.

The Value of the EDB

As I continue my summer-long obsession with crafting the perfect fantasy football draft strategy, I am concerned that one of the most valuable commodities in FF is dying off. The unparalleled producer, the prize roster-dweller, the Every Down Back (EDB). These are the workhorses. The guys who combine talent and durability in a package so reliable that offensive coordinators will accept no substitutes. And with the popularity of the running back by committee principle (RBBC), drafting even a single EDB is no longer a certainty. And now even premier backs are being relegated to platoon duty thanks to an influx of talented rookies. New members of the committee system this season will include Willie Parker (thanks to Reshard Mendenhall), Justin Fargas (if McFadden > or = Peterson then Justin better be praying he gets the same timeshare deal in Oakland that Chester Taylor got in Minnestoa), Tatum Bell (Kevin Smith, meet Tatum Bell. Tatum, meet the bench), and DeAngelo Williams (Jonathon Stewart was built for goal-line carries). So the question is, with up-and-comers vulturing carries for established backs, is an over-the-hill, or questionable talent that gets all the carries more valuable than a truly talented back who's going to share carries? Before this latest bout of speculation, I would have skipped right over Frank Gore and Clinton Portis and taken a Maurice Jones-Drew if necessary. But now I'm not so sure. I'll have to see how the RBBC candidates shake out in pre-season before making a call. But I still submit that any draft pick after the five spot is going to be a painful pick. Maybe another mock will soothe my mind...

Federer vs. Nadal: Epic match, so what?

On Sunday Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal went at in what is already being called the greatest Wimbledon men's final ever. At a whopping 4 hours and 48 minutes, with 3 rain delays and five sets (the 5th going to 9-7), I'm not doubting the sports reporters calling Nadal's win "epic." But I have to wonder if anyone in the US cares. This was probably the most compelling setup for a men's tennis match in years, but few people in the US sat down to watch (and at almost 5 hours, can you blame us). Collectively, we seem to have a vague awareness of what goes on in the tennis world (An all Williams women's final is certainly good for the ratings), but we don't stop to watch. Some of that is because the dominant players are not American. In the absence of an American powerhouse, we turn to the international players/models for poster children (Sharapova, Kournikova, etc.). But our interest in those players has more to do with their men's magazine photo spreads than their game. With the exception of the emergence of the Williams sisters, tennis has offered little captivation for American audiences in the past decade. And in many ways, tennis shares that characteristic with another downtrodden enterprise in the US, the NHL.

OK, maybe comparing tennis and the NHL is a stretch. But when you think about what these sports have going against them, there are some similarities:
-Some of the best players are from international extraction. This is always going to kill American audiences. We want hometown heroes.
-There are no superstars. There are stars within both sports. But what makes a SUPERstar is talent and personality. A John McEnroe is the only thing that could potentially boost the American audience for tennis or hockey. But we live in such a high-performance era, that any tennis player with the athletic prowess to make it to the big show, must have an iron will and perfect focus to stay there. Racket tossing and shouting at the chair umpire are no longer eccentric and funny. They are signs of mental weakness. Hockey players, on the other hand, have always seemed to lack personality. Have you ever watched an interview with a hockey player? It's painful. I used to cover hockey games for RIT SportsZone and interviewing a hockey player after a game (whether they've won, lost, or set an NCAA saves record) is like pulling teeth.
-They're both kind of boring. In tennis, we have points. And lots of points go into a single game. And lots of games go into a set and a several sets go into a match. Are you kidding me? I love tennis. But as a spectator, when I see a drawn-out, scrambling for every-shot, flashing backhands and punishing overheads point, I kind of wish it counted for something. But think about it this way: In a men's match, where one opponent must score (at a minimum) 72 points to win 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. All of that work for 1/72 of a match just seems demoralizing. Hockey's problem is different, but no less mind numbing. The lines, the substitutions, the penalties and the power plays. There is something archaic about the game that does not lend itself to adoption by the casual fan. Even the 4 downs system in the NFL is easier to explain that an "icing" call.

But here's where they're different (and this is the important part). Tennis knows it's boring. Tennis knows it's champions are often unrecognizable. And it lives with those facts. Tennis is appreciative of the folks who do tune in to watch a Federer Nadal match and doesn't scold the audience and ask why they don't stop by more often. The NHL thinks it is bigger than it really is, or ever will be. Its executives whine that the NHL doesn't get enough TV coverage, but when the Stanley Cup is on, it's pulling in half the audience Dancing With the Stars manages. The NHL tries to keep up with the big three (NFL, MLB and NBA) and fails miserably. But instead of embracing the underdog mentality, the NHL will just keep upping player salaries and ticket prices until even the devoted fans have no avenue to the game itself. While tennis toils in obscurity, hockey toils against obscurity. And the NHL is losing.

Nike+ Experiment

Ok, you may have noticed that it is not in fact January 8th. Very astute. However, January 8th was the last time I uploaded run data to Nike+. And now that I have a blog, I wanted to see what it would look like to post run data. Now I just need to get myself up and moving so I can post new data.

WALL·E Review

I went and saw WALL·E this afternoon. Once again, Pixar has made a movie that appeals to all ages (except bitter 13-16 year olds who are too cool for Disney/Pixar). I was debating with my girlfriend about whether WALL·E represents Pixar's best work to date. I think everyone has gotten over how amazing the animation looks, so now it is indeed the story that counts. And on that front, I think the creative team at Pixar continues to excel. I give them tremendous credit for what they've achieved in WALL·E. To make robots with vocabularies consisting of less than 10 words apiece so expressive and so evocative is fantastic. The critics have already heaped praise on WALL·E, so mine is hardly necessary. I'll leave it at that.

Guitar Hero: Aerosucks... Even More

Before I post my review of WALL·E, I want to further downgrade my opinion of Guitar Hero: Aerosmith. I put in a little more playing time tonight and it just keeps getting worse. Instead of selecting the iconic singles that made Aerosmith famous, the game continues to dump same-sounding, blues-rock crap into every set. I'm going to beat in on hard then I'm shelving it and getting back to GTA IV.

Auction Draft Review

As promised, I kicked off a mock auction draft on ESPN.com today. This was my first auction draft of any kind, but reading the directions ahead meant it was easy to play along. The biggest drawback to ESPN's new offering is that no one knows it's there yet. There were at least 10 auction drafts kicking off when I logged in and only one other live draftee. I elected to face off against 9 computer players, rather than having two live owners. Of course, when drafting with computer owners, you face the typical autopick issues. There is no reflection of the bullish, or bearish feelings real draft rooms often feel towards certain players. Those feelings often pushing a player much higher or lower than their average draft pick (ADP) suggests. So it would be instructive to repeat the process with real owners to see how things changed. But here's a brief summary of lessons learned from today's auction draft:
-You CAN get the players you really want. At least a few of them.
The draft format means that nobody can prevent you from bidding to your heart's content for elite players. Bu these players come at premium prices, and you will pay the price when trying to fill out your other key positions. Look at this way: Avoiding a top RB will give you exceptional buying power to pick up one or two high end receivers. Which brings me to my next point...
-Receivers are in short supply.
When you start pricing the typical draft list, it's amazing how expensive receivers can remain, even deep into the draft. But when you consider that receiving talent and production falls off steeper than any other position, it makes sense. But this is a key consideration when drafting. QB's, TE's, D/ST's and K's can be had dirt cheap, but RB's and WR's will cost you.
-The time factor.
The entire draft took about 1 hour, 15 minutes and that included a 5 minute break (that I didn't need and I doubt the computer owners were tired). This was surprising given that the auction draft requires a full 30 seconds for each player. But my initial concern about a ridiculously length draft was unfounded. However, once you've drafted most of your key position players, waiting through the rest of the process can be mind numbing. I tried to think of it as bargain shopping for players I might not have planned to own, and I began using the nominating process specifically for players I wanted to own.

There are plenty of other lessons I picked up, but since I don't intend on doing an auction for any of my real leagues and it's my day off, this post is officially closed.

A Draft Too Far?

I was perusing ESPN's fantasy football site before heading to bed last night and I notice that their mock draft lobby now includes an "auction" option. For the uninitiated, an auction draft differs from a standard FF draft in that team owners must use a pool of "auction bucks" to bid on the players they want to own. This approach is supposed to prevent the complaints that often come from owners who end up on the bottom half of the order in standard picks. For example, if Owner A REALLY wants Ladainian Tomlinson, but Owner A got the 8th pick in standard draft 10 team league, Owner A is out of luck. But in an auction draft, Owner A can outbid all comers to own LT. Of course, this approach will inevitably put a premium on the price of LT, and Owner A will have to be happy paying chump change for scrubs to fill out the rest of his roster.

Based on this doctrine of enhanced fairness, I can see the appeal of the auction draft. But in practice, it seems convoluted and unnecessarily drawn out. A standard draft is long enough as it is. How much longer will it take to nominate a player, then bid, then nominate a player, then bid, etc.? Of course I intend to find out. Sometime over the holiday weekend I'm going to participate in an auction mock on ESPN and see how long the process actually takes.

I couldn't imagine using the auction in a real league unless... It was a big money league. For those individuals who have the fanaticism and disposable income to pay a buy-in fee with more than two digits before the decimal, I think an auction league would be a very cool alternative to plunking down, say $200, and then drafting your team. Instead, have an auction draft with a fixed minimum bid for each round (round 1 nominees: $50 min. bid, round 2 nominees: $40 min. bid, etc.). Bidding with real cash would add a true risk/reward element to the auction draft and would almost certainly be a more gratifying means of building the payout pool. But unfortunately, my leagues don't function in that rarefied air. So I'll check out the auction method this weekend and post my impressions. It'll be a learning experience.

Guitar Hero: Aerosucks

I was pysched to run out on Monday and buy the latest installment of the Guitar Hero franchise, Guitar Hero: Aerosmith. But due to an ongoing project at work, I didn't really get a chance to sit down and start playing until tonight. And I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed. I appreciate that the game is supposed to focus on Aerosmith's evolution as a band. But populating each set with the deepest cuts off of older Aerosmith albums seems like a surefire way to turn off all but the most dedicated Aerosmith fans. I certainly found no joy in muddling through Aerosmith "classics" that I had never heard before. And I'm not thrilled with the non-Aerosmith selections either. The strength of GH III was that all of the songs, no matter how mind-numbingly difficult (Raining Blood on expert...) were catchy, distinctive and fun to play.

Despite "easier" game play, many of the songs on GH: Aerosmith are just filler until advancing to the next tune I recognize. I know that there is a GH: Metallica on its way, but unless I see a much stronger set list, I'm sticking with GH III until World Tour comes out. In any event, I did get a wireless axe and I'm starting get accustomed to the same buttons my co-workers have been using. That bodes well for any future head-to-head competition next time I'm in the office.

Mariotti is Back

I just started playback of today's Pardon the Interruption (PTI) and I am SHOCKED to see that Jay Mariotti is sitting in for Tony Kornheiser. Longtime PTI fans will remember when Mariotti was a frequent guest host of the program right up until June of 2006. That was when White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen went on a rant and dropped a homosexual slur on Mr. Mariotti. In all fairness, Mariotti was slinging mud at Guillen while purposely avoiding the White Sox clubhouse. But in the fallout from that ugly episode, Mariotti seemed to disappear from the PTI desk. I've seen him periodically on Around the Horn, but this is the first time I've seen him back on PTI since the summer of '06. In his absence, it seemed that Dan Le Batard became the substitute of choice. Now that Mariotti is back behind the desk, I think I miss Le Batard.

What am I doing?

Once again I'm hitting the blog road. Why? Well, I'm starting to feel like a hermit in my home office here in NoVA, and I thought this might be an good way to enhance my connection to the outside world. But ultimately I just want a forum to post my thoughts about news stories, technology, television, movies and sports (especially Fantasy Football). I'm not disciplined enough to stick to a single topic, so the chances that someone will subscribe to this thing are pretty slim. But I'll take them. On with the show...