Is Big Brother Watching?

I just watched The Insider on television last night. If you haven't seen it, the movie stars a pre-Gladiator Russell Crowe as an insider for a big tobacco company. He agrees to go on 60 Minutes to talk about all the evil that goes on in that industry.

The issue of the movie is that after Crowe's character goes through all sorts of hell after interviewing with 60 Minutes (death threats, harassment, divorce), CBS corporate pulls the plug on the interview because the corporate bigwigs don't want the tobacco company to sue them and drive stock prices down. So the moral of the story is that apparently corporate big wigs now control the news. It's very paranoia inducing and I'm sure dozens of conspiracy theories were created after the movie hit the theaters.

Maybe it was the movie waking up that cynical part of brain, but I get the same "big brother" vibes from ESPN these days. Scott Van Pelt was suspended for ripping into baseball commish Bud Selig about his otherworldly salary last year ($18.5 million).

If Van Pelt had used a curse word or had some other blatant violation that could cost the station money, then I would understand a suspension. But Van Pelt was punished for speaking too harshly of Selig, who incidentally is presiding over an 8 year, $2.4 billion broadcast deal with ESPN.

So apparently ESPN personalities should stick with those witty 30 second bursts they have on Sportscenter before showing two minutes of clips while they act all toady towards LeBron James. Unless you're name is Stuart Scott, then you need to go from proper English Stuart to ghetto fab Stuart ("Cleveland arrived in New York yesterday to complete a three game road trip throughout the Hudson River Valley......ahem.....LeBron James was in the hizzzouuse beotch!")

Why does ESPN even bother to have radio shows then? The whole point of a radio show is to have more creative freedom than you would on an hour long television show where you have 30 seconds to write a lead and then show highlights. Seriously, does anyone bother to listen to a radio show that is only sports scores and updates for three straight hours?

Van Pelt and others like him work a gazillion hours a day and talk sports all day every day. If they want to pop off about something, they have as much right to do so as anyone. In fact, it makes them sound like an actual sports fan and not just a sports computer. Let'em play ref!

If Van Pelt or any other ESPN anchor goes too far on their radio show, you can bet the court of public opinion will strike back. Then ESPN corporate can get involved and dole out a punishment. But I don't want my radio content determined by bean counters and corporate types. I've met plenty of those, they're generally smart, dull, self-absorbed, and more worried about their wallets than entertainment.

Sounds like a great person to determine radio show content doesn't it?

A Chance To Remove The A-Hole From A-Rod

So there he stands: the public relations machine in all of its backfiring glory. Alex Rodriguez is a lesson that actions speak louder than words.

He is a man who talks to the media as though he were holding a sheet written by his agent. Very careful, very calculated, very...blah.

His actions on the field mimic his baseball personality: very precise and with purpose. He's could be the greatest talents of the modern era with his combination of power, speed, and hitting ability. A-Rod puts up yearly numbers that put him at the top of fantasy drafts and very well could rewrite the record books in tradition-rich major league baseball.

Yet he doesn't inspire anyone in the stands or the clubhouse. He doesn't look like he has any fun out there, he's just doing his job that he gets paid so very well for. In fact, I've never seen such a talented player so denigrated throughout the country who hasn't actively done something to deserve it.

Barry Bonds acted surly and paranoid. Albert Belle was a thug. John Rocker was a racist ass. A-Rod? He's made sure to never say anything too crazy, anything that might damage his reputation.

And that's why people hate him: they see him as insincere. He's not one of the guys.

He wears the mask of A-Rod in front of the cameras, meanwhile, off the field stories abound of A-Rod being an arrogant jerk. His teammates in Texas mockingly called him the "cooler" after he was traded because, despite his talent, teams get better when he leaves. His infidelity led to his wife filing for divorce. He says he and Madonna aren't together, then rumors surface about the two buying a place together. There are stories of A-Rod demanding special treatment at Texas restaurants and offering his simple autograph in return.

One thing everyone could agree on, however, is that A-Rod has always been naturally talented. Now even that is being sullied as the steroid issue rears it's ugly head yet again in Major League Baseball. If it's true that A-Rod tested positive for steroids over the past few years, there's no telling how high the dog-pile might get.

But much like the Chinese have the same word for opportunity as they do for crises, A-Rod can use this issue to become a normal person again.

If A-Rod treats this issue like he has treated other problems---by saying what his agent or P.R. manager wants the public to hear instead of what A-Rod really thinks---then people will hound him relentlessly about the subject.

But if A-Rod just comes clean about the positive steroid test. Just tells the truth whatever it is: he used them because of an injury, he wasn't careful enough about what supplements he was taking, everyone else around him was doing it and he didn't want to be left behind... people might eventually give him some respect.

It won't be easy, people will be all over him because he's A-Rod. But they will know he's human. And that will be better for his reputation than anything an agent can dream up.

A Tale of Two Bongs

By now, you have no doubt run across no fewer than 17 news stories involving the fall-out of the Michael Phelps pot smoking scandal.

Regardless of where you fall on the subject, you can't get away from the differences between the way Phelps has been treated and the way Super Bowl 43 MVP Santonio Holmes was treated after he got caught smoking pot WHILE DRIVING.

Phelps has been thrown on the BBQ so much after being photographed hitting the bong, that all sorts of normally indifferent people have become staunch Phelps supporters. I'm still waiting for the inevitable "Leave Michael Aloooooone" internet video mocking the Britney Spears fan.

I'm sure people expected Phelps to lose a few erstwhile endorsements from his weed endeavor. I know I wasn't surprised when Kellogg's dropped Phelps from the Corn Flakes ads, though I think Kellogg's might want to research who buys its products before it causes a pot boycott as Post and General Mills stock goes up through the roof.

Subway is possibly going to jump ship too. Again, why the hell would a food company bail due to pot smoking allegations? Is it not aware of the natural side-effects of pot?

Now a sheriff in South Carolina named Leon Lott---not to be confused with Leon Lett, the former Dallas Cowboys defensive lineman. Leon LETT, incidentally, was busted twice for drug use during his NFL career. Wow, the plot indeed thickens! But back to Leon the sheriff---Lott says now that he will file criminal charges against Phelps if he can determine that the swimmer was smoking pot in his county.

So to sum up, Phelps is losing multiple endorsements which all have to do with food and now some crazy sheriff is contemplating filing criminal charges him which I'm sure has nothing to do with the sheriff trying to selfishly advance his career.

All of this for admitting wrong doing and directly dealing with the issue instead of denying or skirting the issue...the exact thing people say they want celebrities to do when they are caught doing a no no. Huh.

Meanwhile your Super Bowl 43 most valuable pot-head was caught earlier this season with a smoking joint in his car. He gets suspended for one game by his team and that's the end of it. Now he's a Super Bowl hero, gets to be the center of a parade in Pittsburgh, gets a new car (MVP award, because professional athletes need new cars more than the rest of us), and gets to be the spokesperson for Disney despite the pot charge and the photo of him showing off his huge dong in the shower.

DISNEY! YOU'RE TELLING ME FOOD COMPANIES CAN'T BE ASSOCIATED WITH A POT SMOKER, BUT THE BIGGEST FASCIST FAMILY VALUES COMPANY IN AMERICA CAN?! HAVE YOU BEEN TO TIMES SQUARE OVER THE PAST DECADE? THAT COMPANY IS OKAY WITH POT, BUT FOOD COMPANIES AREN'T?

Well, I think it's clear what needs to happen: Holmes needs to give away his new car complete with freshly smoked pot blunts and then needs to go do porn since apparently he can't get busted for much. Meanwhile, pot smokers should find the motivation to unite to make Kellogg's and Subway suffer for being so short-sighted. And the sheriff Leon Lott needs to be placed in a Goofy suit and locked in a room with Leon Lett after a PCP and Angel Dust bender.

Those are just my thoughts.

It's Not A Big Deal, By Which I Mean It Is...

Every college football expert tells you that National Signing Day is not THAT big of a deal. We make too much out of 17 year old kids signing a letter of intent to play at a said program. ESPN posted a message for the unwitting followers: "Fans, please remember that rankings mean nothing now, but two to three years from now is when you will know a class' value." That's true, yet you always see sports specials and multiple websites dedicated solely to the purpose of college recruiting.

Recruiting is called the lifeblood of a college program, so it is important, but does it matter if you have what the "experts" consider a top 10 class?

Well, if it takes a few years to decide a class value, I will just have to go back and check out the old school recruiting classes of some of the top schools. Florida, Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, and LSU have all been consistently good teams over the past few years, so let's take a look at where two major recruiting websites, Scout.com and Rivals.com, ranked the classes:

2004
Florida--Rank: 7.5 (Scout: 8th, Rivals 7th)
Ohio State--Rank: 10 (Scout 11th, Rivals 9th)
USC-- Rank: 1 (Scout 1st, Rivals 1st)
Oklahoma-- Rank: 7.5 (Scout 7th, Rivals 8th)
LSU-- Rank 2 (Scout 2nd, Rivals 2nd)

2005
Florida--Rank: 13
Ohio State--Rank: 9.5
USC--Rank: 3.5
Oklahoma--Rank: 4
LSU--Rank: 20

2006
Florida--Rank: 2
Ohio State--Rank: 12.5
USC--Rank: 1
Oklahoma-Rank: 8
LSU--Rank: 7

2007
Florida-- Rank: 1
Ohio State-- Rank: 15.5
USC-- Rank: 2
Oklahoma-- Rank: 22
LSU-- Rank: 4.5

4 year rank average:
Florida-- Rank: 5.8
Ohio State-- Rank: 11.8
USC-- Rank: 1.8
Oklahoma-- Rank: 10.3
LSU-- Rank: 8.3

The top teams of the past 5 years or so all averaged a top 10 recruiting class, so a top class means success, right?

Uh, not exactly buddy.

Tennessee's four year average rank is: 9.8
Michigan's is 7.7
Florida State's is 10

All three schools averaged Top 10 recruiting classes over the years, but Tennessee and Michigan both fired the head coach and Florida State has been considered a team in decline.

Notre Dame has been bringing in top recruiting classes, but that team can't get past .500 even with Charlie Weiss and his Patriots magic.

Meanwhile a team like Virginia Tech barely cracks the top 25 in recruiting every year and yet somehow ends up in a major bowl game.

I know some conferences are better than others, but that's no excuse for the seasons Tennessee and Michgan have dropped on the fans. Meanwhile Florida State seems to dismiss half of the top recruits every year for disciplinary reasons.

So recruiting is definetely important to success, but a top 10 class doesn't mean anything if you don't get players that can fit in to your system.

If this 2009 recruiting class is any indication, you should expect to see LSU, Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, and USC all battling for championships over the next few years.

But it's all a gamble, so put your money down on the table and start rubbing the lucky rabbit's foot because you never know when a top recruiting class will end up folding.

Newer and Younger

Here's a few coaching stats following the Super Bowl that you may or may not know:

Out of the 43 Super Bowls that have been played:
there have been 20 times when both head coaches have been at their first NFL coaching job
20 times when at least one of the Super Bowl head coaches have been at their first job
and only 3 times when neither Super Bowl head coaches were in their first job (Bill Belichick vs. Tom Coughlin last year, Belichick vs. weepy Dick Vermeil in 2001, and Dan Reeves vs. Mike Shanahan in 1998)

Basically if the Super Bowl didn't involve the Bill Belichick or Dan Reeves exception (coaches good enough to get the the Super Bowl yet not able to stay with original team), it usually involves first time coaches.

This begs the question: What in the name of pigskin are Jerry Jones and Alex Spanos doing?

Both owners should have seen some pattern over the past few years as to who was winning Super Bowls, you don't make multi-million dollar decisions without researching them first. Yet here are these two owners who got out and put the fate of the Dallas Cowboys and San Diego Chargers in the hands of coaching retreads who have yet to even MAKE the big game, let alone win it.

I understood the first retreads Jones and Spanos brought in. Bill Parcells and Marty Schottenheimer are known for their ability to build teams into winners. Both coaches are also known to be short stays wherever they go due to boredom or control issues.

So when the inevitable happened, Parcells retiring for the 129th time and Schottenheimer butting heads with management, both football teams should have been ready to move on with a coach to take the talented teams over the top.

Instead, both Jones and Spanos came up with a hire that installed zero confidence in the fan base. Wade Phillips and Norv Turner had only minor success at other stops and while Turner has shown some post-season ability with the Chargers, Phillips has failed over and over again with the Cowboys.

In either case, both teams very well have missed their window of opportunity to make it to the big game. The Chargers could still make it, but LaDanian is fading fast and the Chargers can't keep finding Darren Sproles and Michael Turner type studs to replace him. If Turner can't bring it all together in the next two years, San Diego will begin the slow decent into rebuilding mode.

The Cowboys are even worse off since Jones has decided to be in charge of the draft again which means there will be zero talent coming in. The Cowboys had their big chance last year, but they kept screwing around with the Giants and it eventually cost them.

The point is, whether it's real or perception, head coaches tend to make impressions early with teams and if it doesn't work out, they're damaged goods. It's not a coincidence that only Dan Reeves has made it to a Super Bowl with the third team he's coached (Atlanta). Either the coaches don't have the ability to coach big games, or players don't believe in him due to past failures.

I know it's not easy to go out and just "find" some kind of Mike Tomlin coaching virtuoso, but you have to try and find someone who the team and fans can rally behind. If the new coach brings a hint of failure with him, the players are less likely to accept him.

Both Phillips and Turner are on their third team and had little post-season success at the first two stops. The odds aren't good for either Dallas or San Diego making the Super Bowl.

I guess that shampoo commercial was right: you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Nom Nom Nom

Ever since the Super Bowl, I get this reoccurring image in my head: Some crazy owner or CEO at Denny's is sitting in a board room. His eyes flit about quickly as he sweats profusely. Basically Robin Williams is running Dennys. That should give you an image.

His MBA-carrying minions are sitting around discussing the next marketing campaign when the CEO shouts "I've got it! We are going to give free Grand Slam breakfasts the Tuesday after the Super Bowl!"

The room noise stops as though the needle has been scraped off the record player. Everyone just stares at the CEO not sure whether to laugh or panic. Maybe the old guy has finally snapped.

"Uh sir, we're in the middle of a recession. Why would we give away a free breakfast?" asks the only person in the room with the balls to speak up.

"No, that's brilliant!" says the calculating Chief Financial Officer. "We put a small ad in the Monday paper and let the local news stations pick it up. Half the people don't pay attention to the news anyways. It will be good public relations."

The CEO shakes his head, "No, the paper's been done before, everyone's done the paper. We need something bigger. Something that really gets attention. Something that...." The CEO stops and gets a gleam in his eye. Everyone in the room squirms.

"We're going to go all out here folks." the CEO almost whispers. "We're giving away a free Grand Slam breakfast and we are going to advertise it during the Super Bowl."

The room goes silent for a full minute. When people realize the CEO is dead serious about allowing the people of America to defalcate money from the Denny's stockholders, a flurry of action ensues. Several men plead for business reason. The financial officer vomits into a nearby flower pot. One man texts his wife to go get a couple extra bottles of tequila at the liquor store. Others go to update their resumes while others throw caution to the wind and start downloading porn onto all of the computers.

At least that's how I see it. All that matters is that the idea made it to fruition and while I had to brave a crazy old man driver who nearly ran me off the road, a group of elderly people sitting next to me who had to scream in order to talk, and a group of 20-somethings behind me who couldn't go more than three words without using the word "like", I got my free Grand Slam breakfast.

Well done crazy Denny's CEO, well done.

X Right, 238 Schlong

What is it about the Super Bowl recently that has turned it into a vessel for sexing us up? I know it has the attraction of a world audience, but the Big Game has had that since the 1980's yet only in the past four years have we had this issue.

The gold standard for Super Bowl nudity remains "Nipplegate" when Janet Jackson brought the FCC hammer down on every media program for the next few years. All of that for one gorgeous boob.

Now we have a new entry into the sexy Super Bowl reference section. This one reached a much smaller audience, but was a stronger dose of human yum-yum play.

Apparently the local cable affiliate in Tucson, Arizona gave viewers an unexpected bonus during a replay of Larry Fitzgerald's long touchdown reception. As a replay of the big play was shown, viewers were treated to up to 30 seconds of porn.

The best part about the story are the shaken residents reviewing the assault on their privates. From what I gather, the porn scene had some girl sitting with her hands down a guys pants. People stayed with it because they figured it was another GoDaddy.com commercial or something. Then the guy stood up and dropped his pants to reveal his chaff and then all hell broke loose.

Angry e-mails flooded the cable company as horrified people told the tale of how their third grader was in the room and saw EVERYTHING and how they were canceling their subscriptions to the cable company first thing Monday morning.

The thing that blows...my mind...on this is that they had just been watching grown men slam into each other for 4 quarters. They are watching replays of guys grabbing each other's face masks and fore-arming each other in the throat. And this was okay.

Then sex pops up and everyone freaks. I guess we are just a country founded on anger and violence.

I understand it's awkward with kids in the room watching. I'd feel awkward too if my kid asked me about it.

"Daddy, what are they doing?" "Uhhh, well, she's looking for her wallet and he gets up and he wasn't wearing a belt and his pants fell down. Wow, he must be embarrassed, now let's go pick out the clothes you're going to wear tomorrow. NOW."

30 seconds of porn is not going to turn kids into drug using whores though. In fact, I'm guessing that kids would think nothing of that scene if parents didn't freak out about it so much. It's like when a toddler falls down bumps their head: if you just react like it's no big deal, they go on. If you swoop in and freak out, the kid cries.

So just chill out down there in Tucson. Of all the things to worry about in this world, 30 seconds of a twig and berries shouldn't destroy your life. It will just force you to decide if you want to be truthful with your kids or if you want to create a wonderfully elaborate story to completely hood-wink them for a few more years.