Project Runway Season 4: Week 5

I stopped writing about Project Runway because there were just too many annoying factors:

1. The winner/loser selection process. Obviously producers have too much input.
   
2. Heidi Klum. Very stiff and uncaring... I can't believe Seal hasn't killed himself.
   
3. Basic contests rules don't seem to matter. If you say contestants needs to make a dress out of A, and contestant one has an outfit made of 1% of A and contestant two has an outfit made of 50% of A, don't you think contestant two should get some leeway?
   
4. Michael Kors and Nina Garcia. They're both annoying, but at least I can see Kors's creations... Garcia doesn't make anyhing!
   
5. The Judges. They never seem to have an original idea and they seem to always agree on what is great and what isn't.
   

Anyways, I'm watching season 4 (I'ld like to think the writer's strike has something to do with that) and I've alread got my favorites, least favorites and predictions. Of course I don't know exactly when someone will leave, since that week's contest has a lot to do with it. But there is obviously a hierarchy to the quality of contestants. This is the way I see it:

The bottomfeeders:
10. Ricky - Relatively boring designs and poor construction.
9. Elisa - Slightly interesting and definitely daring, but too weird and poorly constructed designs.
8. Sweet P - Not interesting, not daring, not boring, not anything really.

The middle:
7. Chris - I like some of his stuff, but then I hate some of his stuff. Kind of a wild card.
6. Jillian - Boring safe stuff but she makes up for it with some great constructor/tailoring.
5. Victorya - Kind of the anti-Jillian. Not a great tailor but at least her designs are more interesting. Because she's female, she's most likely to replace Kit in the top 3 (from my predictions).
4. Christian - Interesting but good (not great) designs. He'll stick around because of his personality, but probably won't make the top 3 because they just can't have an all male top 3.

My predicted top:
3. Kit - Could easily be kicked off before getting to the top 3, but she's daring enough to warrant staying this far.
2. Rami - Great designs and construction, and probably deserves to win, but not my favorite.
1. Kevin - My favorite, great designs and construction and is more daring than Rami. Also he is consistently being screwed by the producers for some reason or another.

My big gripe with this week's show: Christian shouldn't have won and Kevin got screwed. I would be pissed about Steven leaving (because Elisa and her terrible history of designs should be leaving) but I can't deny that Steven's dress was the worst this day, and Elisa will/should leave within the next two weeks.

NFL Football: Week 15 - The two games that matter.

I haven't written in awhile because I got busy, but mostly because I just never got up to it. The Caps were losing, the Redskins kept losing and then the Sean Taylor murder happened. It just wasn't a great time to write. But of course, the recent victory will get me writing again, so here goes:

When we last left our no luck Redskins, they had just lost to the BTEIAS (Best Team Ever In Any Sport, i.e. New England Patriots) 52-7. I chalked up the huge loss to a fluke, which I think, all things considered, was pretty accurate.

The New England Patriots came back to earth, with two games which they could have very easily lost (Colts and Eagles), and one game (Ravens) that they should have lost. Now they've got a clear path to regular season perfection against the Jets and Dolphins, a combined 3-23, and the Giants. But by that time the Giants should be resting people for the playoffs since the Cowboys already won the division. Not exactly stellar competition, but it could be exciting... but I'll get back to that in a second.

The Redskins, meanwhile, fulfilled my comparison with the 2005 Redskins, by winning the game following the blowout and then losing 4 in a row (although they only lost 3 in row in 2005). Now they just need to complete the rest of my prediction by winning 4 in a row (It was 5 in 2005).

But this year because the NFC stinks, if the Redskins did win out, their 9-7 record (with wins against the Lions, Cardinals, and Vikings) could very likely get them into the playoffs. Sadly that just ain't happening. Too many injuries, too much inconsistency and just too many non-football issues. The comparisons with the 2005 team fails because the 2005 team didn't have so many distractions and the team didn't fail so predictably in the second half.

But... lets say they did win out. And since we're dreaming, let's suppose one more thing: the Giants lose the following weekend on the road to the Buffalo Bills. That scenario would set up a very interesting Week 17. Going in to the final week of the season, the Redskins, Vikings, Lions and either Saints or Cardinals (since they play each other this week) could all be 8-7. The Giants would suddenly be 9-6 and in danger of missing out on the playoffs... and remember who they would be playing? That's right! The assuredly 15-0 Patriots, that's who! The really interesting thing about this scenario, is that the Giants wouldn't know the results of the other games because their game is scheduled for the night before the rest of the league plays (So they couldn't watch one or some of the 8-7 teams lose and know their playoff spot is guaranteed).

Note: BTW, the Redskins don't need to win out for this to happen, the Giants just need to lose 2 in a row, but it would put more teams in the possible 9-7 logjam that could make the Giants vs. Patriots game mean a lot more.

Too bad the Redskins will lose on Sunday, assuring the Giants of a playoff spot and the Patriots of an easy time getting to 16-0. Crazy how all that essentially hinges on 2 games (Redskins vs. Giants and Giants vs. Bills), huh?

UPDATED: Trying to explain the lyrics to Don Edwards's "Coyotes"

I still get a good amount of emails, comments and feedback for a post from 2 years ago. And because of it, I've had to updated it again.

Schilling's Baker's Dozen

Curt Schilling wants to play one more year and he has listed 12 teams, in addition to the Red Sox, who he would play for. So in other words, Curt Schilling things the following 13 teams have a chance of winning the World Series next year. Schilling picked every division winner from this year and both 2006 World Series participants. He left off the New York Yankees (somewhat obviously), the Colorado Rockies (does anyone want to pitch in Denver?), the Seattle Mariners (not sure about this one) and the Toronto Blue Jays (pitching against the Sox and Yanks) all of whom had winning records.

Anyways, here are the teams and some comments from me... oh and keep in mind that, although I really enjoy baseball, it's definitely not my strong suit and some of the people I assume will be there next year may not be with those teams. We'll go from worst to best:


13. St. Louis Cardinals (78-84) - The only team with a losing record on the list. Presumably, their World Series win last year and their under-performance this year is what has them on Schilling's list. I wasn't too impressed by the Cards either year (except for their 2006 playoff run), but they would be a good fit since the Cards need some pitching.

12. LA Dodgers (82-80) - A better pitching staff than the Cards, but it seems to me they've got enough highly paid older guys on their team. I guess he could take over David Well's spot, but it still feels like Schilling named the Dodgers more so because they're the Dodgers than because they have a chance. Maybe Joe Torre can turn them around but I have my doubts.

11. Milwaukee Brewers (83-79) - This is where it gets interesting because the Brewers could use someone like Schilling. They have some good young arms and they've got the bats in Milwaukee but there is just something wrong when Jeff Suppan leads your team in wins. Also, who wants to move to Milwaukee?

10. Atlanta Braves (84-78) - Old pitchers leave Atlanta, they don't go to Atlanta. Interesting, but much like Milwaukee, I just don't see them having a chance next year.

9. Chicago Cubs (85-77) - The first in a group of teams that would be good for Schilling mostly because he can apparently unhex (or is it de-hex) your team. Also the Cubs always seem to have a shot at the World Series. A half-hearted approval here.

8. NY Mets (88-74) - Very similar to the Cubs situtation. The Mets are hexed (although nowhere near as long as the Cubs) and he can join up with fellow ex-Red Sox Pedro Martinez. On the other hand the Mets already have a bunch of older pitchers (Martinez, Tom Glavine, Orlando Hernandez, Aaron Sele and Billy Wagner). Maybe he can replace one of them if they leave, but the Mets need more help that Schilling can offer.

7. Detroit Tigers (88-74) - On looking over the Tiger's roster, this team seems like a good fit. They should have a spot in the rotation and their bats should provide adequate run support... but there's something I just don't like about it.

6. San Diego Padres (89-73) - Another team that, like the Tigers, seems like a good fit. I'm "feeling" the Padres more than the Tigers, so this will be the first full "approvals" by me.

5. Philadelphia Phillies (89-73) - The first of two teams (aside from the Red Sox) Schilling has pitched for. Looking over their roster the Phillies seem like a good fit, too bad they're also cursed. I give this a half-hearted approval.

4. Arizona Diamondbacks (90-72) - The other team that Schilling has pitched for. He could rejoin Randy Johnson and try to relive the 2001 season, but doesn't he want some passion with the fans where he pitches. The Diamondbacks struggled to sell playoff tickets! I just think it's a bad idea.

3. LA Angels (94-68) - The Angels seem like a good fit for Schilling because they have only one pitcher over the age of 33. Their bats were a little lacking this year, but they're young so there is definitely room for improvement. I really don't see anything wrong with it... so another approved from me.

2. Cleveland Indians (96-66) - Cursed... just cursed. But then again it wouldn't be the first time he's been part of a curse reversal... Another approval from me.

1. Boston Red Sox (96-66) - Probably the best fit for him. Schilling thinks he's got another year in him and they should bring him back and hope he retires next year with yet another World Series ring.

NFL Week 8 review: Eating Crow

52-7... Wow, those 16 points seemed like nothing. The Redskins simply stunk up Gillette Stadium and I now sound like an idiot who didn't, couldn't or just wouldn't recognize how great these Patriots are. And you know what? I'm still not convinced about the Patriots (I'll be convince after this Sunday, one way or the other). But about the Redskins, I'm still somewhat intrigued and I feel like I'll be that way all season. I won't belabor the points everyone is making around DC but I will make this correlation:

Two years ago the Redskins stunk up Giant Stadium with a 36-0 loss to the New York Giants. Aside from the Redskins scoring this time and the Giants not running up the score, there are a lot of similarities to 2005. That year they entered that game with a 4-2 record, with 2 close loses, 3 close wins and a blowout victory. Just like this game they couldn't do anything offensively or defensively and in both cases is wasn't entirely because of the opponent (They ended up beating the Giants 35-20 later that season). They just, for one reason or another, simply sucked. Because of this I am not entirely disheartened by this loss. I just can't make a good judgment about the Patriots on this game because the Redskins didn't show up. (Trust me, I'll be fully ready to proclaim them the Best Team Ever In Any Sport if they convincingly beat the Colts this week)

My point in bringing up that game from 2005 was this: The Redskins aren't as bad as last Sunday. But I don't think they're good enough to improve on that 2005 team which won a Wild Card game and gave the Seahawks a good game in the divisional playoffs. Unless they start playing well, and get lucky (much like Pittsburgh did that year) they're doomed to repeat 2005, or worse.

So here is my prediction: they'll win 2 of their remaining 4 conference games and of the remaining 5 games (vs. Jets, Bucs, Bills, Bears, Vikings) they should beat everyone but they'll probably find a way to lose one or two of them. That should leave them at either 9-7 and 10-6, which in the NFC should be just in or out of a Wild Card spot. So that means they're in good shape Wild Card-wise since they beat the Lions and Cardinals. They just NEED to beat the Giants in their rematch and hope the Packers keep getting lucky and win the NFC Central. If they're lucky enough they may even draw the Packers and get some "revenge" for their "fortunate" win in the same way they got revenge on the Bucs in 2005.

Week 8: Skins vs Pats

Remember about a month ago, when the Redskins beat the Eagles and I was only "somewhat intrigued" by them? Well, sadly, I'm still only "somewhat intrigued." And honestly, it's been that way ever since. They lost 2 games they should have won (Giants and Packers) and almost lost a third game "they should have won" last week against the Cardinals. So here I am, only somewhat intrigued, and they're going into a away game against the Best Team Ever In Any Sport (BTEIAS).

Every one is hyping the Patriots as essentially the best team ever because they seem impossible to stop on offense. And you'ld be a fool to not agree that they have been impressive. However, doesn't anyone care that they're doing it against terrible teams? The Pats have only beaten one team with a winning record, the Dallas Cowboys. And that's not saying much considering the Cowboys have only beaten one team with a winning record themselves (The Cowboys beat the then hapless New Giants in Week 1). The other 6 teams the Pats have beaten have 11 wins between them... not exactly stellar competition.

The Pats have beaten the 28th, 16th, 31st, 29th, 32nd, 7th and 15th ranked defenses. And before you say "Well what about 7th, 15th and 16th?!" I say "Cowboys, 0-7 and Norval Eugene Turner." The Cowboys (7th) are even more suspect than the Pats since they give up a bunch of points (21st in points allowed) and (like I said earlier) they haven't beaten anyone of note. The 0-7 Dolphins (15th) are, well, 0-7! Finally, the Chargers are crippled by their head coach who is the master of beating bad teams and losing to pretty much everyone else.

I could go on and on, even bringing up how the Colts are much better rounded AND they're not running up the score on teams, but we'll leave that discussion for next week. Although, I'm sure that will be discussed to death in the lead up to Week 9's Pats vs Colts game.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Redskins are going to win on Sunday or even that they are as good as either the Pats or Cowboys. But are the Pats really 16 points better? The Pats have been running up the score on teams so, of course, you should expect them to try and score a bunch of points, but they have yet to play a defense anywhere near as good as the Redskins.

All I'm saying is if the Pat's end up not looking like the BTEIAS, please don't pull the "they were looking ahead to the Colts" excuses. Frankly, in almost every case (not just the Pats this year), that is a horrible excuse. So let's all agree that whatever happens we won't make up dumb excuses; We'll agree to take it for what it's worth. And maybe, just maybe, I'll finish this weekend at something a little more than "somewhat intrigued."

Patriots Cheating Games rehashed

I used to like ESPN2's Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons' writing. I liked his insightful observances (The "Patrick Ewing" Theory) and his quirky lists (Levels of Losing). I could even get over his unabashed homerness... partially because I was a Red Sox fan. But then something happened about a year and a half ago. The Sports Guy entered the main event at the World Series of Poker and got sucked out on his all-in bet two hours into Day 1.

Go ahead and read it. It's rife with annoying hubris and whiny crybaby comments. Some of my favorite lines include "nobody had trips, I could tell from the body language" (No, he could tell because of hindsight. If he's so good at reading people why isn't he playing professionally?) and "And you know what this nitwit had? A-K. With the odds now significantly in my favor (84.3 percent).." (Yeah, but what was he doing calling a $550 bet, not a small amount 2 hrs in, against 3 other players and K-10 in the first place? His pre-flop odds against just one A-K was at best around 30%.) It was like Bill Simmons was starting to become one of those people he always complained about: a combination of spoiled athlete and a know-it-all sportswriter.

And so last week, when his New England Patriots were caught cheating he and another Boston sports fan (who is also a writer) decided to explain away their favorite team's indiscretions in a article I commented on last week. But I guess that wasn't enough. He's come back with more excuses and whines.

So as Jules Winnfield might say, "Well, allow me to retort."

1. Since practically the first 9 or 10 paragraphs can be compacted into "My team is good. The Chargers aren't as good, but everyone thinks they are and we beat the crap out of them but no one seems to care because of this stupid little cheating thing. Especially YOU NBC!" I can easily respond to that: What in the world were you expecting? Did you really think people were just going to forget that the team that barely won 3 of the last 6 Super Bowls was just caught cheating? Trust me, the coverage will/should die down soon enough, seriously, you need to give it at least a few weeks!

Now on to the answers:

And yet, the Patriots videotaped another team's signals for three-fourths of a quarter and everyone reacted like they kidnapped a Jets assistant and tortured him for information or something.

Are you kidding? Do you really think all of this is ONLY about three-fourths of a quarter on September 9th? Sure, it's circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless of a pattern of cheating. Or did you really think that this was the only time the Patriots had ever done this?

Is there a chance -- just a chance -- Belichick has gotten a little paranoid in his old age, and since an undermanned Jets team played them closely in all three Pats-Jets games last season, he spent the spring and summer wondering if Mangini had figured out a way to steal their signals, so he decided to tape their coaches in Week 1 to see if that was true? And then he got caught?

Wait, so maybe you do think this is the first time they've done this. Don't you think that's being at least just a little bit naive? It's certainly naive to think that most football fans aren't at least wondering how far back their cheating goes. And considering the many close margins of victory they Patriots have had (especially in the Super Bowls), you don't think this is at all valid?

The Patriots cheated in one game. They got caught, they paid the price.

Wow! So you actually do think it's the only time. STOP being so naive.

But since they've already paid a steep penalty for a one-time indiscretion, can we move on with the 2007 NFL season, please?

Yes, they have, rightfully so, paid a steep price for that single incident, but it's amazing that you would think we should just stop at that. That we should just assume that this is the only time it has happened. The rest of us are moving along with the 2007 season, but that certainly does not preclude us from looking back.

We live in a world in which... So save me the moral indignation about CameraGate.

Save you the moral indignation? How about saving the rest of us from your pathetic melodramatic diversion. Yeah, the world is messed up and there are a bunch of stuff more important that CameraGate, but these people get paid to write and talk about FOOTBALL, not all of those other things. And in the world of football, aside from someone getting hurt, cheating is probably the biggest deal. Now I'll grant you that Kevin Everett is by far a much more important story, but there's only so much to it: We all wish him and his family the best and we love hearing the improving updates, but it pretty much ends at that. It's a wait and see thing with him, because we can't hurry his recovery. However, there are still many unknowns about CameraGate... as much as you would love it to only be about Sept 9th, 2007, we're all wondering about February 3, 2002, February 4, 2004 and February 6, 2005 and a few other important dates.

Finally, you know what? You're right. Just like every Redskins fan, you and we both knew that Norv Turner would sink San Diego's up-and-coming ship. And it seems to be happening. But let's assume for a second that next year the Chargers go 11-5 and win the Super Bowl. And then 2 years later they win it again, and then the following year they win it yet again. All of them by 3 points and all of them with Norv Turner at the helm. And let's say that about 6 years from now, they find out that Norv Turner had allowed his defensive coordinator to steal an opposing teams playbook, in a week 1 matchup. Wouldn't it make you at least wonder a bit? Wouldn't you think back to today, when Norv is a punchline to a coaching joke?

You see, thats what we are all facing. Bill Belichick, was once Norv Turner, a hapless, go-nowhere coach and now he's headed to Canton. Just a little bit weird... don't you think?

NFL Week 2: Redskins beat Eagles, 20-12

Last week I said I would wait until this week to see if I knock the "somewhat" off of my Redskins assessment of "Somewhat intrigued." Well, I'm not doing it. I'm still only "somewhat intrigued."

The Bad: Jason Campbell overthrew a wide open Santana Moss on a sure touchdown, which would have sealed the game. The defensive line gets no pressure on the quarterback, their sacks this week were all essentially coverage sacks. They did not force any turnovers. The Skins were helped by terrible passes and even worse play calling.

The Good: Just about everything else Jason Campbell did. The Redskins beat a conference opponent on the road... and not in overtime. The Redskins gave up no touchdowns and have given up only one touchdown in two games. The secondary played much better than last year week.

So it stays at "somewhat intrigued." Now if the Skins could get a good pass rush we'll start talking, because I'm not too worried about most of the other stuff.

NFL: Patriots Cheating Games

(Don't you just love cheesy headlines like that?)

I haven't write much about the NFL this season mostly because I wasn't all that excited about the Redskins prospects this year and after their first game, I'm still not exactly excited. I'm somewhat intrigued, but definitely not excited. We'll have to wait until after Monday night's game to see if I remove the "somewhat" from that statement.

Anyways, what prompted me to write was the news that the New England Patriots cheated in their game against the New York Jets last weekend. Well, not exactly. What actually prompted me to write was this ESPN article written by a couple of Pats fans, who happen to also be sports writers.

In case you want to save yourself from reading their pitiful, excuse-laden banter, here is their response/excuses in a nutshell:

1. Their advantage from cheating was minor
2. Everyone, past and present, cheats

Well, excuse the rest of us for questioning the situation. Yes, we should all just assume that this and the Green Bay game were the only ones in which the Pats cheated. Oh and we shouldn't worry because they were blowouts anyways, so there was no real advantage. Sorry, I just don't think that makes any sense.

The response to the first point is quite obvious: the Pats margin of winning, and essentially superiority, was also minor. Each of their Super Bowls was won by a margin of 3 points, 2 of them on last second field goals. In their Super Bowl runs, aside from games against the Colts and a rookie quarterback (Ben Roethlisberger), they have never won a playoff game by more than 7 points. Is anyone going to claim that this kind of cheating isn't worth a lone touchdown?

The quick response to the second point is fairly simple: Not everyone is stealing signals and using radios on defense. So when the teams that has won 3 of the last 6 Super Bowls is caught cheating it makes you wonder. Besides, no one cares if the losers are cheating as long as the winners aren't cheating. That's why they put the emphasis on testing the top finishers in most sports (Olympics, cycling, horse racing, etc).

Their other sporadic points are also easy to answer:

If they caught Tampa Bay doing this, would people be suggesting that the Bucs' 2002 championship was tainted?

Ummm... YES! Of course!

if you're videotaping an opponent's signals, common sense dictates this advantage couldn't be realized until the second half of a game, following a halftime in which these signals would be broken down the same way you'd break down a country's radio frequency during a war or something.

Why would anyone wait until halftime to "break down" the signals? Do you think Belichick is doing the "decoding" himself? Also, don't you think that teams reuse codes? NFL players aren't computers. Steal them once and it's very likely that they'll use them again next time you play them. In fact, I think the reason the Pats were doing it this time WAS for their next game. The Jets probably changed signals and they needed to learn the new ones.

If we're going to stick an asterisk next to the '01, '03 and '04 Pats, don't stop there -- it needs to extend to Elway's Broncos (cap cheaters), DeBartolo's Niners (cap cheaters), the '90s Cowboys (drugs and hookers), the '86 Giants (coke), the '85 Bears (Tony Eason was on the other team), the '70s Steelers (steroids) and pretty much everyone who ever won a Super Bowl.

I can't speak specifically about the '70s Steelers and Jim Haslett (who is brought up later admitting to steroid use), but mentioning steroids is a weak excuse because it's an individual thing. You'll always have a few players on every team cheating (Shawne Merriman and Herm Edwards), but stealing signals and using radios on defense (notice they didn't mention that) is an advantage for the entire team.

The Tony Eason comment is obviously a joke but "drugs, hookers and coke" is also a joke. Those things are certainly stupid and illegal but they're not cheating.

Cap cheating is another matter. As Aaron Schatz states, it's probably the best analogy. But Schatz even says it himself: "However, fiddling with the salary cap didn't hand them the championship." To a certain extent I agree, especially considering the Broncos won their Super Bowls by more than 3 points each. But, there is a big difference between fiddling with the salary cap (which every team does to a certain extent) and signal stealing and using radios on defense (which most teams don't seem to be doing).

You see that's where the problem lies, the Pats were cheating, doing things most teams didn't do AND they were winning by close margins. You seem to think it is jealousy and "hatred" but it's nothing more than "testing" the winners because they won. It just aggravates the situation considering they won by so little of a margin. In this case, it feels like if they cheated in the playoffs and Super Bowls it would certainly have "handed them" at least 2 of the 3 championships. Is there anything wrong with looking back to see if there was evidence of cheating at the Super Bowl?

About what should be done, I just don't know at this point. The NFL should investigate and disclose to fans what was found, but I doubt that's going to happen. But there is a hope that this won't just get brushed under the carpet, because Roger Goodell has been cracking down on players, so why should it stop there? I disagree that they should be banned from post season for 2 years for the same reason as stated in the article (You're essentially telling a large group of fans to stop watching for two years), but I also disagree that this is in the past and "there's nothing we can do about it." For the losers of those games maybe there isn't, but for the integrity of the game taking away Super Bowl and Conference title trophies is an option.

Until now, I have, without reservation, considered the Pats a dynasty. Certainly not an intimidating and dominating dynasty, but a dynasty nonetheless. So to use the same words as Bill Simmons when he questioned Game 3 of Spurs-Suns series in 2007 NBA playoffs that was refereed by Tim Donaghy: "Now? I'm not so sure."

Harry Potter Spoiler revisted...

So I actually started reading the images on that site and noticed a few things that happen 19 years later:

• Harry Potter is married to Ginny and has a son named Albus Severus (so Snape is good?), a son named James and a daughter named Lily
  
• Ron, or someone else by that name, is alive and well and married to Hermoine with a daughter named Rose and boy named Hugo
  
• And the final sentence is "The scar had not pained Harry for nineteen years. All was well."

Dear Harry Potter Fans... don't read the following:

Sorry, I just can't help myself.

• Ron dies.
  
• Lupin dies.
  
• Percy dies.
  
• Voldemort dies.
  
• Snape dies.
  

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has been spoiled... believably this time. The above link has enough photo evidence to convince me.

Update: I guess I wrote too soon about the spoiler.

Terrible Editing by the Post and a Another Panda?

So Mei Xiang might be pregnant again which if you live in the DC area you probably already know because this town LOVES it's pandas. So this means that once again DC will go into possible panda mode (a precursor to the frightening new born panda mode) but really all that doesn't matter because I've got something else to complain about that happens way too often:


There is a pretty big editing mistake in this article. Go ahead and read it and the come back... you back? Good, now tell me who "Gibbons" is. You'll see that four times "Gibbons said" something, but at no point did they bother to explain WHO Gibbons is. I'll go ahead and assume they're talking about the zoo's spokesman John Gibbons, but come on you might want to mention his full name at some point! Editors seem to love to cut content but they don't bother to check to see if they're removing the first instance of a name? Just my beef because this happen really often... we'll see how long it takes to fix.

Update: It was finally fixed for the "print" version.

Life is like a hurricane, here in Duckburg!

If you're anywhere near my age you probably grew up watching and loving DuckTales. Well, here's a bit of nostalgia mixed in with some wierdness. Just in case you want to hear people sing "Woo Woo" in different languages, here are some DuckTales intros from around the world:

• Arabic
  
• Czech
  
• Dutch
  
• Finnish
  
• French
  
• German
  
• Italian
  
• Japanese
  
• Norwegian
  
• Russian
  
• Slovak
  
• Spanish
  
• Swedish
  
• and finally, English
  

You just gotta love YouTube!

a long time coming

I know, I've been lax here for awhile but its for a good reason: Cindy and I are buying a house. We're closing this Thursday, so after that you can expect to see even less of me. Well probably not but we'll be working at the house a lot, in the mean time. Anyways, here are my quick thoughts of the events of the last few weeks:

• The PGA Tour is bringing a real tournament to DC and not only is it going to be bigger and better than the Kemper Open/Booz Allen Classic (which was always screwed by being so close to the US Open), it will be a charity event for The Tiger Woods Foundation... which means Tiger will probably be here for many a July 4th weekends to come. Sweet.
  
• The Cowboys passed on Norv Turner (not good Skins fans), and decided to go with Wade Phillips (good for Skins fans) as their head coach. Phillips is marginally better than Turner so it's basically a wash for Skins fans.
  
• I entirely agreed with the San Diego Chargers letting go Marty Schottenheimer. Except that he was fired too late and for an entirely different reason (because of conflicts with the Charger's GM, A.J. Smith) then I thought he should have been fired for: he was not going to get the Chargers farther than where they got this year, and that should be unacceptable for the Chargers and their fans.
  
• The second season of Top Chef ended with the entirely unlikeable Marcel losing to the "I still don't know how to feel about him"-guy, Ilan. Needless to say this season sucked. You really couldn't get behind anyone because they either had a terrible personality (who wants to root for a jerk) or they just weren't that good a chef (why root for someone you know is going to be gone in a week). And to make matters worse, Top Design sucks as well.
  
• Finally, yes I've entirely spaced on American Idol. I can only name a few contestants off the top of my head: AJ, Chris (the Jack Osbourne look alike), Doolittle, Sundance and Antonella. Those are the only ones i remember. I'll probably start caring again when we get to the top 12.
  

Quick, All-over-the-place Thoughts

• I watched Idol as I was making dinner tonight (yes, I know it was late) so I have no comments but to say: It seemed to be one of those episodes rife with deluded Idol wannabes.
  
  
• Last night, the Caps closed the gap, to 3-2, but they could not get a win. The game was a microcosm of their season: they got off to a rough start and fell behind early. They improved, even showing signs of brilliance, but ultimately were unable to pull out a win/playoff appearance.
  
  
• Yesterday the Recording Academy announced that the Police will open this year's Grammy Awards. Just one step closer to an all out reunion tour. I am seriously giddy.
  
  
• Speaking of giddy, as a Redskins fan, I can't tell you how excited I am that Norv Turner is the front runner for the head coaching job in Dallas. I almost didn't want to post this so I wouldn't jinx it OR in extremely unlikely event that Jerry Jones runs across this blog and thinks "Hmmmm, this random guy is right. Norval Eugene Turner is not the man for the Cowboys." Don't get me wrong, Norv is a great guy but he's an awful head coach. Exactly who or what will keep Terrell Owens from running roughshod all over him. I just don't see Turner pulling a "Bill Belichick" by making a few good decisions and getting lucky for about 5 years. But don't worry Cowboy fans, it's possible, extremely unlikely, but possible.
  

American Idol Season 6: Birmingham Auditions (with a Caps bonus)

Tough night tonight because I'll be switching between the Caps game and American Idol.

I'm a bit late turning on the Caps and they're already down 1-0. Minutes later Ottawa gets a lucky deflection and it's 2-0. I switch to Idol and its not back. Going back to the Caps... and, CRAP! Ottawa gets a power play. Looks like it's going to be one of those nights...

8:14 pm
American Idol is in Birmingham, Alabama. First we have Tatiana McConnico and she great... great personality, not cocky, and great voice. You just couldn't ask for better. Holy crap shes good, and she's 17! Obviously she's through, and I'm betting she makes it to the final 24, at least.

Diana Walker is up next and she is a toss up... really could go either way, but her speaking voice is slightly promising. She's not horrible, but definitely not good. She leaves golden ticketless, but certainly she won't be the worst they'll show.

8:21 pm
Caps update: The first intermission is on and the Caps seem to have survived the power play. So we switch to Fox: Idol comes back with Bernard Williams singing Michael Jackson's "Rock With You" He's good, but I'm sure they've heard a bunch of voices like that. Surprisingly Simon says yes and PAULA, of all people, says no. I agree with Paula (wow I can't believe I typed that), but Bernard is through.

Margaret "Big Bird" Fowler, is up next and she seems obsessed with showing her gut... repeatedly. riiight. Of course, her voice is, well, not good to put it nicely. But I do like that her name is Fowler and she's dressed like a giant bird. You gotta love this show!

8:27 pm
The Caps intermission, shows that the first goal was also on a deflection. Sheesh! I can't wait til the Cap's defensemen get a little more experience.

8:30 pm
Back to AI and we see a bunch of people who make it to hollywood, but apparently they're not interesting enough to introduce. Finally we get to this year's version of Kellie Pickler, Jamie Lynn Ward. She's even from North Carolina! And she has a horrific story about her father shooting his cheating wife and then shooting himself... wow that was kind of a downer. Anyways, her voice is okay. But I'm betting she's getting through because of the Pickler aspect. She get's through easily.

Next we have Chris Sligh, who looks much more like Jack Osbourne than Jack Black or Christina Aguilera. He pulls a funny line when asked why he's auditioning saying "I want to make David Hasselhoff cry." Good one Sligh! His voice is good but he would be entirely generic if it weren't for his interesting look. I'm pulling for him though, mainly because he's funny. He's got a myspace page and a blog, if you're interested.

8:41 pm
Day two starts with Cousin It look-a-like, Victoria Watson. She dresses uniquely... pretty much to match her 6 foot long hair. She's not bad, but she's not better than "alright". Understandably she doesn't make it to Hollywood, but at least her family is there to console her.

Lakia Hill is next and her singing voice matches her squeaky speaking voice. She's all over the place, even pulling a "What the hell was that?" from Simon. Her audition leads into another barrage of rejections, all with people seeming to take it pretty well.

8:48 pm
Caps are 4-on-4 and Ovechkin SCORES! It's 2-1. Alex tried a pass but it was blocked, he get the puck back and wrists it high. Nice goal! Of course, minutes later the refs feel that the Senators need a power play...

8:50 pm
Back to Idol, and we're introduced to something called "Team Nicole." Nicole Gatzman seems to have a good speaking voice... and her voice is somewhat promising. But they don't invite her back to Hollywood, mainly because her voice is just not developed enough.

Next we have a contestant who has been in teasers all night, Brandy Patterson. She's a breakdown just waiting to happen as she just butchers Madonna's "Like a Virgin." She even takes off her sweater half way through. She's stunned that Simon says "Everything about that was wrong." She says "maybe it was the floor or something." Simon gets her to sing on the carpet... you know... Just in case. She thinks she sang better on the carpet, but Simon puts it well when he says, "That'll be a Never."

Best part, though? When she calls Simon out for trying the wrong door (something Simon has been doing to contestants)... pretty funny actually.

This episode is coming to a close and we fade out to "Sweet Home Alabama." Hollywood is tomorrow... but for auditions. The crazy auditions seem promising, so I'll be sure to be watching tomorrow night.

BTW, the Caps must have given up the goal on the power play because as I got back it was 3-1. They get seriously unlucky as they fail to capitalize on a 5-on-3 (with a bunch of good chances). Of course that's a bad sign since it seems the Caps defense won't be able to keep up. The Second Intermission arrives and the Caps are still down 3-1.

Ranking the Super Bowl Teams: or how the 1991 Redskins get no love

There is a prevalent gimmick used today by sports writers, sports TV shows, sports website, and by yours truly: Ranking. Ranking the NFL teams, the best NBA dunks of all time, the best outfield catch in a World Series, the best defenseman of the 80s who never played in a Stanley Cup finals... you get the idea.

Rankings will always have a good amount (some more than others) of personal opinion in them, but I feel it's important to establish some empirical and measurable aspect to them. For instance, in my state quarter review, I established that in every instance "cutting off" the bottom of the design is bad ( i.e. negative points). Of course there are levels of bad, but you get the point.

I bring this up because ESPN has made a ranking of the Super Bowl teams (winners and losers) from Super Bowl I to Super Bowl XL, and boy do they lack this measurable aspect. Oh, they claim they had a methodology but I don't think they really used it. They seemed to throw the "team" aspect of the ranking out, in favor of big names (I'll elaborate on this later... just look for the names Lawrence Taylor and Mark Rypien.)

Anyways, here is my biggest gripe about this ranking: The 1991 Washington Redskins are ranked #10. Granted, they admit there is reason for Redskins fans to be upset AND they admit the 91 Skins might the best team of all time... but I'm still complaining! First thing, they already called the 91 Skins the 4th best team of all time. Second, they give a pair of terrible excuses:

Excuse #1: they say their running game wasn't all that good because their average yards per carry was ranked 18th (never mind that #9 Patriots were also ranked 18th in yards per carry). That reasoning is a load of crap considering the #1 (89 49ers) and #4 (92 Cowboys) teams (both teams with good running offenses) were both ranked 9th in yards per carry (The 49ers were tied with seven teams, making them tied for spots number 9 through 16). A main reason for a low yards per carry is that when you're a great team you tend to build a big lead and then you run the ball A LOT in the second half to run out the time. Obviously the opposing team is aware of this and they play to stop the run. Besides, comparing a stat like that is useless because what does it matter that your yards per carry are high if you're going to lose the game. (As an example: the team with the highest yards per carry that year was the San Diego Chargers, who went 4-12!)

Excuse #2: I'll just quote the ridiculous excuse: "And while Mark Rypien didn't have exactly a fluke season, he certainly had a career year. And we're having a little trouble getting past ranking a team with Rypien higher than 10th." The problem with that is that, save for 1989 and maybe 1992, it was a fluke season. Rypien became Joe Montana for 2 or 3 years. In fact, he had a better season than Montana's #1 ranked season, Jim McMahon's #2, Terry Bradshaw's #3, Troy Aikman's #4, Bob Griese's #7, and Phil Simms' #8. Remember, according to their methodology you line up the teams and players as they were that year... so pretty please, with sugar on top, stop being enamored with a name (or lack of a "name") and realize that for 2 seasons Mark Rypien was, if not the best quarterback in the league, among the Top 3 quarterbacks in the league. Aside from all that, one man should not make or break a team's ranking.

Now allow me to explain why they should rank higher than most of the teams ranked above them. First, we'll go ahead and give the 78 Steelers and the 72 Dolphins a pass since I never saw them play.

Second, we'll just start with the "easy pickins", that is to say the teams they were obviously better than:

9 - 2004 Patriots. Does this even need to be discussed? The Patriots barely beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl, beat the horribly overrated Steelers in the AFC championship, and beat a team who they absolutely OWNED until this year. Thats not exactly as impressive as they make it out to be. ESPN also dropped this nugget: "they were 9-1 against .500 or better teams." Excuse me, but didn't they go 14-2? Doesn't that mean they lost a game to a team with a losing record?! Exactly how is that impressive? A good team should NEVER lose to a bad team because thats the definition of being good! And that one loss to a .500 or better team? It was by two touchdowns! I have to move on because this is just too easy and it could take all day.

8 - 1986 Giants. This choice is equally baffling. And ESPN's explanation? "Lawrence Taylor." No doubt a great player, but ESPECIALLY in the NFL, a player does not make a team. LT didn't even "make" the defense, but even if you want to claim that he did, how do you explain ranking them higher when the Giants defense allowed 12 more points over the season (against an easier schedule!) than the 91 Skins. This team also lost to a team with a losing record. And do we even need to point out how crummy the offense (ranked 8th in points and 10th in yards during the season) was? Let's just leave it at this: the Giants scored 371 points all season, which puts them last in, not only the Top 10 but, the Top 20, behind even the 72 Dolphins... who played in only 14 games! (The Giants played 16)

Next are the "not as easy, but definitely there for the pickins" teams. In other words, teams that they were better than but you could convince me that the gap wasn't as big:

6 - 1996 Packers. This conversation should begin and end here: with practically identical strengths of schedule (.504 vs .508) the Skins went 14-2 and the Packers went 13-3. If thats not enough how bout these apples: In those 2 loses the Redskins lost by a total of 5 points, the Packers 3 loses were by a total of 15 points... an AVERAGE of 5 points a loss. The Skins scored more points than the Packers (485 vs. 456) AND had a better point differential (+261 vs. +256). In the playoffs the Redskins scored more points (102 vs.100) AND allowed less points (41 vs. 48) so, obviously, they had a better point differential (+61 vs. +52) there. Finally the Redskins win the coaches battle (Joe Gibbs vs. Mike Holmgren) hands down, and barely lose the QB battle (91 Rypien vs. 96 Brett Favre) mostly because Favre threw for so many TDs because their running game wasn't all that good.

5 - 1984 49ers. I think this team is ranked almost right, except that I would have ranked them above the 92 Cowboys (we'll talk about them soon enough). First we'll address the only thing that I think could warrant ranking the 84 49ers higher than the 91 Skins: their records, the Niners went 15-1 and the Skins went 14-2. But consider the following: First, the Skins strength of schedule was harder than the 49ers (.504 vs .457). To go along with that, the Skins played in the strong NFC East (where in 1991, three teams had double digit wins and only the Phoenix Cardinals had a losing record) and the 49ers play in the perennially weak NFC West (where half the teams had losing records in 1984). Second, both of the the Skin's losses were close games to division rivals AND the last loss was in the final game of the season (when you're apt to rest your best players to not risk injury for the playoffs), on the road against a division rival who went 10-6 and barely missed the playoffs. Oh and it was on a last second field goal! Had the Redskins played an easier schedule (or just in the NFC West) I'm certain they would have gone at least 14-2. So if you null out the difference in records, you have to measure them statistically, and these teams are either equal or the Skins are better there.

4 - 1992 Cowboys. The discrepancy between this team being ranked #4 and the 91 Skins being ranked #10 is probably the biggest travesty in this ranking. Why? Because, for all intents and purposes, these teams played each other! Not surprisingly these teams split their series in 1991 and then again in 1992. So what do you do when teams are equal head-to-head? You go to a tiebreaker, which means comparing statistics and comparing how the teams did against other teams. In both cases the 91 Skins come out on top. The Skins had a better record (14-2 vs. 13-3), and a much harder strength of schedule (.504 vs. .426). The Redskins also DIDN'T lose to a 6-10 team at home in the middle of season, like the Cowboys did. Statistically they were pretty even on defense, the Skins allowed more yards but the Cowboys allowed more points. On offense, though, the Skins were without a doubt better. The Skins scored more points (485 vs. 409), had more yards (5820 vs. 5718), scored more TD (rushing, 21 vs 20; AND passing, 30 vs. 23), and threw less interceptions (11 vs. 15). Sure the Cowboys had the "Triplets", but obviously the Redskins "no name Quadruplets" (of Rypien, Earnest Byner, Art Monk and Gary Clark) were better (sure the "Triplets" sustained their greatness, but, once again, this isn't a comparison of who was better over their careers but at that particular point in time).

The final two teams, the 1989 49ers and the 1985 Bears, are tough to compare against the 91 Skins and so it's hard to conclusively determine who was better.

2 - 1985 Bears. It is always tough to compare any team to the 85 Bears because this team has to be the most hyped team in Super Bowl history. Not that they didn't deserve it but every other team in the top 10 deserved that kind of hype and (except for the 72 Dolphins and 78 Steelers) I'm sure none of them received it. So any team being compared to the 85 Bears starts at a disadvantage (As proof: lots of people seem to think that team had the best defense ever, ignoring that the 72 Dolphins, 78 Steelers, and 00 Ravens, all of whom had better defenses, by points allowed). When you boil it all down these guys were mirror images: the Redskins almost had the best offense ever and the Bears almost had the best defense ever. On the other sides, the Redskins had an excellent defense and the Bears had an excellent offense. To an unbiased observer who doesn't fall for the hype, it's truly a tough call.

1 - 1989 49ers. The 89 49ers and the 91 Redskins were only 2 years apart, so you might want to consider the head-to-head matchup between the two teams in 1990. The 49ers beat the Redskins in the playoffs in San Francisco that year, but that just isn't a good comparison. The 49ers were still at their peak (just barely losing to the Giants the following week in the NFC championship) but the Skins were definitely not the 91 Skins, with Rypien hurt for half the season and Gerald Riggs splitting time with Earnest Byner. Otherwise, these teams are were very similar, with the same record, 14-2, (although the Skins had a tougher schedule) and the same margin of losing: both by a total of 5 points. Statistically, you really can't beat the 49ers offense (although the 91 Skins come close), but the 91 Skins had a better defense. So pretty much the Redskins had the more "well rounded" team.

So that's my argument... even if you put the 72 Dolphins, 78 Steelers, 85 Bears and the 89 49ers ahead of the 91 Skins, that puts them at least in the Top 5. And ever since then there hasn't been a team as good as the 1991 Redskins... and with free agency and the salary cap, there just may never be such a great team.

American Idol Season 6: Memphis

8:00 pm
Here we are in Memphis and they start by making it look like the city was empty, implying everyone was auditioning for Idol. Anyhoo, the lame joke finally done, we start with Frank Byers Jr., a cheerleader from Southern Adventist University. He gets a montage, making me think he's in since he doesn't look crazy. And the kicker? His nickname is "Frank & Beans"... yeah he'll need to change that. Except that he's not that good... and he's not making it, getting 3 nos. But the band and cheerleaders don't seem to care about that and start playing and chanting "Franks & Beans."

8:09 pm
Timika Simms from Chicago is next and since we've already been treated to a bit of her audition, we know this is doomed from the start. She's auditioning with her backpack on, which just can't bee good. The best part of her audition is her conversation with Simon where she tries to say she could be like "Amaya" and Simon keeps asking "A Mayor?". Her voice is nasally and she just keeps at it after repeated rejections from all three judges.

Chris Rivera, with some "Awesome 80s" style jeans, continues the barage of umm... lets say interesting singers. Finally, we have Alexis Partee with her bracelets sounding like a tambourine as she sings... Randy put its well when he says "it was a little strange for me." Do I even need to tell you that none of these people make it?

Next, we have a fella with a good speaking voice named "Sundance." His real name is, Jason Head, and he is humble (saying something to the effect of, "they'll hate me and I'll be on TV leaving the show") enough so I'm pulling for him. And he starts singing with a great voice. He's definitely this seasons Scott Savol: a big guy with a voice, except that he's even better than Savol. And of course good ole Sundance Head is through.

8:20 pm
Coming back from the break we have Wandera Hitchye, with an interesting hairdo and a good voice. The judges say she's too generic... and give her three nos. She breaks down as she leaves, and this leads into a barrage of rejections and cruel comments. We finish with Travis (missed the last name) doing a crazy breathy rap/singing thing. Of course, he's headed home though.

Danielle McCulloch is up and she has a good voice, like Wandera. Unlike Wandera, though, she's got some personality while singing so she'll probably make it through. Randy says no, Paula says yes and finally Simon puts her through. I think Randy is right in that she'll be gone pretty quick.

8:30 pm
Day two in Memphis starts with Christopher "Topher" McCain, a big fan of Paula Abdul. A sad story, since his cheating wife left him and he thinks when he becomes the next American Idol she'll want him back... but he says he's not taking her back. He gets a little vengeful when Simon asks her about his wife, calling her something that got bleeped out (probably "b*tch"). His voice isn't terrible, but certainly not good. And he's fairly quickly rejected.

Janita Burks is next, and she almost falls out of her top... like Topher she isn't terrible but, once again, not good. Until she tries to sing again... her second shot was terrible.

Sean Michel, a Fidel Castro look-a-like who already has 2300+ friends on myspace, is next and he's got a pretty good voice. I'm sure a bunch of guys have as a good a voice but he'll probably make it because of the look. He gets three yeses and Randy gives him his first "You can blow!"

8:43 pm
Melinda Doolittle, a professional background singer with a good speaking voice, is next. But she picks Stevie Wonder's "For Once In My Life" (breaking my first rule of American Idol) and she does pretty darn well but she doesn't do anything special/different with it. She definitely deserves to go to Hollywood though, and... she through with a "One Million Percent Yes!" from Simon.

Robert Lee Holmes comes up and says he sounds just like Elvis. Hmmm, we'll see... he's going to sing "Burning Love." Entirely expectedly, he sounds nothing like Elvis and his rejection leads into a montage of people singing "Burning Love" with a bunch of people who have already been rejected.

8:54 pm
We enter the last break (Idol gets truncated by the State of the Union address tonight) with Philip Stacy, a new father. He starts off a little sharp but he cleans it up. He's got a Taylor Hicks quality to him... and Simon points out that he starts off his songs a little rough. 22 contestants make it out of Memphis and tomorrow we'll be in New York tomorrow, so you know you can expect a bunch of weird stuff.

George comes to Washington

I had always thought that the best radio station would be one that did not stick to a set genres (just rock, just R&B, or just pop) and formula (playing the billboard top 50 in those genres). I thought if I ever owned a radio station it would play everything... well maybe not classical or "hard" country (those genres just belong by themselves).

So I was excited a while back when I first heard about "Jack FM." Sure, it wasn't exactly my ideal since they stuck to the popular Billboard 100 songs of the past 40 years, but it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, though, the only Jack FM radio station around here was 102.7 WQSR out of Baltimore, which didn't reach DC all that well. But finally today, DC has it's own Jack FM... sorta: The local classical station has switched to a Jack FM-like station called George 104.1.

It happened at 3 pm today... and in case you were wondering the last song played by 104.1 WGMS was Bach's "In Tears of Grief from the St. Matthew Passion." And the first song played by 104.1 WXGG? Fittingly, it was Sheryl Crow's "A Change Would Do You Good." If you were a fan of the classical WGMS... do not fret: Bonneville donated WGMS's 15k disc library to WETA, down at 90.9. And then at 8 pm WETA switched to classical. And their first song? A triumphant "Concerto for Two Trumpets" by Vivaldi.

And why the name George? Well according to the Jack FM article at Wikipedia, most Jack FMs are CBS radio stations (George is Bonneville) and the name Jack FM is licensed from Big Sticks Broadcasting. So, like BEN-FM in Philly, George in DC has to have a slightly different slogan ("70s, 80s and whatever we want") then Jack's "playing what we want."

So I'm listening... and the best part of it all? It will be commercial free for the first 104 days, which means no ads until May 7 of this year. As Borat would say, "nice!"

NFL is lacking and Super Bowl XLI

ESPN has already called it the Colts O vs. the Bears D. To me that means two big things: There is no need to watch (unless you enjoy bad football) while the Bears are on offense and the quality of play is sadly lacking in today's NFL. Allow me to explain:

Back when I was young there were imposing, dominating giants in the NFL. It was a time when the NFC had a span of 13 straight Super Bowl wins of which the NFC East won 7 and the San Francisco 49ers won 4. It was a time of memorably great teams and coaches such as Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells. It was a time of good offenses with great defenses or good defenses with good offenses.

And it wasn't like the AFC didn't have it's own giants, they were just slightly lacking (the Denver Broncos) or they got unlucky (the Buffalo Bills and "wide right"). When the AFC finally turned it around, it was one of those giants, the Broncos, that broke through.

Then in 2000 something happened. The St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl with a imposing offense but a defense which was not horrible but certainly lacking. The following year the Ravens were NFL Champs with a great defense but with a horrendous offense. All of a sudden, it became alright to have glaring weaknesses because everyone else had them too. So, as long as you had a good offense or defense, you just needed some luck and that would be enough for a Super Bowl win. Just remember, the Titans were a yard and a few seconds short of beating the Rams, and the Giants/Ravens game was close until the 3 back-to-back touchdowns in the third period.

They called it parity and it was in full effect in 2002 when the all-around mediocre New England Patriots beat the one-sided Rams on a last second field goal. In case you needed hard proof of the parity (or the "Putrid Mediocrity" or "Putrid Parity", as I've heard it called) the "Super Bowl MVP", Tom Brady, threw for all of 145 yards. I thought Adam Vinatieri deserved the MVP, but that would have been an all out admission of mediocrity. And the mediocrity has just lingered and even strengthened in the past few years:

• 2003, BOTH Super Bowl teams from 2002 (Patriots and Rams) failed to make the playoffs and the "defense only" Tampa Bay Buccaneers (with their 24th ranked offense) beat the "offense only" Raiders in the Super Bowl.
  
• 2004, Once again both Super Bowl teams from the previous year failed to make the playoffs (the Bucs went 7-9 and the Raiders were 4-12), and the Patriots won their second Super Bowl on another last second field goal, this time against the Carolina Panthers.
  
• 2005, The Panthers (last year's Super Bowl runner-ups) fail to make the playoffs. In the Super Bowl, the Patriots barely beat the Eagles who, like all of the Patriot's Super Bowl opponents, fail to make the following year's playoffs (with a 6-10 record).
  
• 2006, We reach an undeniable apex of parity when the generally mediocre Pittsburgh Steelers beat the slightly better (but not on that night) Seattle Seahawks. At least the Seahawks made the playoffs the following year, but not surprisingly the Steelers didn't.
  

Now what does that tell you about the quality of the league? It stinks, and we get to watch playoffs and Super Bowls with mediocre teams and sub par quality of play. We end up with games in which luck is too big a factor (e.g. a botched hold, Cowboys vs. Seahawks, 3 weeks ago; a fumbled fumble recover, Pats vs. Chargers last week; two TDs by linesmen on fumble recoveries, Pats vs. Colts today;). Frankly, I'm tired of thinking "Wow, that was lucky!"

So with that I'll go ahead and give my early pick for the Super Bowl. I'm going against my instincts and going with the recent trend when a good/great defense (i.e. Ravens, Bucs) plays against a good offense... I'm picking the good defense, the Bears.

That is of course unless the Colts get lucky!

2005 State Quarters: California to West Virginia

I took a break off reviewing the state quarter designs when the football season started, but I'm back baby! So without further ado, here are the 2005 quarters: California through West Virginia:


California - One of my biggest gripes with a quarter's design is when they try to put too much on it. That idea, in itself, isn't bad but what usually ends up happening is pretty ugly. The quarter ends up having about 4 different things/themes that have very little to do with each other, so it looks incoherent (I'm looking at you South Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas... and don't think you're off the hook Wisconsin, Florida and Illinois). At least California, like Tennessee and Ohio, tried to make an overall theme about it. Tennessee had the best idea (three instruments for the three sections of the state), but in practice none of them finished the design cleanly. California tried to go the outdoors/nature route including John Muir, a California Condor, and Half Dome (and thus Yosemite Valley). But the quarter looks too cluttered with the condor flying right at Muir's head and Muir looking bigger than everything else just looks wierd (remember aerial perspective doesn't work too well on a coin). But probably the biggest issue I have with the quarter is them feeling the need to explain with text that this is "John Muir" and "Yosemite Valley." In fact, if you take the condor and "John Muir" out, this quarter could EASILY be a B and might even contend for an A. As it is, this is one of those middle grade coins smack dab between a B and a... Grade: C


Minnesota - I don't acutely remember holding a Minnesota quarter. I'm pretty certain I have, I just don't remember it all that well and that's not a good thing... most of the time. It's, in general, an unspectacular coin. The duck and the fisherman don't really have much to do with the state but it does bring together the one thing the state has a lot of.... Lakes. So it makes sense that they went with a lake. However they decided to throw a "top grade killer" wrench in the works by putting the state outline and the words "Land of 10,000 Lakes" on the quarter. Really those two things are the quarters only flaw... the state's outline is not very interesting (the southwest corner, which is a real corner, definitely doesn't help) and the text is off center (too high) and almost unreadable. Sorry, Minnesota, you just missed. Grade: B

Oregon - I like Oregon, as a state. Actually, I like it a lot. And I like it because it's, for lack of a better word, subtle. Oregon is like the forgotten/middle child of the Pacific Northwest (With California, technically Northern California, being the successful older mature brother and Washington and British Columbia being the younger, hipper brothers). But Oregon pulls off the "lesser known", but therefore "cooler", middle child/state role well. And they pulled off their quarter well. A great image of Crater Lake (along with Wizard Island) and the just the words "Crater Lake" added. Perfect really. Grade: A

Kansas - Kansas, like a few other states struggled because it doesn't have a single, well-identified feature to put on it's quarter. So it went fairly generic and simply put a buffalo (or bison if you will) and the Kansas state flower, the sunflower, on the quarter. And thats it. No text (aside from the usual State Name, Year it became a state, Year the quarter was released and "E Pluribus Unum"), no nothing besides a buffalo, 3 flowers and some grass. And I like that. However I just can't get over how unoriginal it is. It helps that the Kansas state song is "Home on the Range" (which has the line "Where the buffalo roam") but even their alternate designs were pretty boring. So, it might be a product of their lack of features, or maybe I'm just being harsh, but they definitely could have tried harder. Grade: C

West Virginia - West Virginia's quarter is almost perfect. If you've read my other review you can probably guess why I say "almost." Yup, it's because of the cut-off bottom. At least in this case it doesn't ruin the quarter, it just makes it slightly "uncomfortable." The other negative mark is that the text ("New River Gorge") is hard to read where it is placed. A shame really, because it could have contended for the best quarter... but do not fret, Mountaineer State. You still get a high mark. Grade:A

AI Season 6: Seattle Tryouts

So I'm watching Idol and I just can't help myself. At least for posterity, and in case they are bored out of their minds, I'm continuing with the comments:

8:30-ish
First thing that stands out is that there is no guest judge. Jewel added minimally to yesterdays show, so I guess we're not missing much. The first contestant I see is Blake Lewis who does a great beat box, but he decides to do Seal's "Crazy." Not bad actually, but not outstanding. Good enough to get to Hollywood out of the dearth of "American Idol"-worthy talent that is Seattle.

8:47 pm
We come back and Ryan Seacrest steals my "'fill-in-the-blank-with-a-bad-thing' that is Seattle" line. We get a short montage of people pretty much yelling and doing some good impersonations of William Hung, with the likes of Michael Bustamante and David Mills.

That however leads to a brother and sister who wisely forego a "Donny and Marie" gimmick by auditioning separately.

First is the sister, Shyamali Malakar, who has a nice soft voice. And with two yeses (Simon doesn't actually say no, though) she's through to Hollywood. I think she's got a lot of potential because she's humble and cute... but she'll need to stand out to get far.

Next is her brother, Sanjaya Malakar. And he starts off by breaking my #1 American Idol rule: Never sing Stevie Wonder. Much like his sister though, he has a good voice, but he doesn't stand out because it's pretty darn hard to stand out singing Stevie Wonder. Otherwise, he's a lot like his sister.

9:00 pm
Back from the break: we start off with a software engineer, Nicholas Zitzmann, from Midvale, Utah who interestingly points out that Midvale is not only near the Salt Lake area but actually IN the Salt Lake area. He also likes to talk with his eyes closed, I think you can see where this is going. As Nick sings "Unchained Melody" he sways back and forth while staring at a spot about 10 feet above the judges. He's predictably awful, but they let him thoroughly butcher Simon's favorite song. Eventually, Simon stops him and says "What the bloody hell was that?" Rather depressingly Nick takes him seriously by answering, "It was me." Oh boy. Finally, following his exit interview which involved a strange interaction with Ryan Seacrest, in which they kinda silently stare at each other, Nick drops the great Forrest Gump line, "That's all I have to say about that."

9:07 pm
Rodolfo "Rudy" Cardenas finishes off day one by singing a tough, tough songs: "Open Arms" by Journey. He's okay, but he probably would have done better by picking an easier song to sing. Simon immediately says no, but Rudy is saved by yeses from Paula and Randy.

9:15 pm
Day 2 starts with news that Simon pummeled the Seattle contestants in the newspaper. And we get a few examples of why Simon said what he said: Up first is Kenneth Briggs who says he's like Justin Timberlake and Lance (Cindy tells me they're speaking of Lance from N'Snyc)... and he's not entirely tone deaf like some previous contestants but he's certainly terrible. At least he's got the boy band dancing straight. Simon stops him and drops the "massive eyes" comment which was in yesterdays teaser/preview. He continues by elaborating on the comment by calling him a bush baby... yesterday, I though he was talking about a tarsier.

Jonathan Jayne follows Kenneth and we get a glimpse of where this is headed when we hear his speaking voice. He sings "God Bless America" and although he doesn't miss every note, he's all over the place. They both leave without a much of a tantrum. Oh well we've got at least another half hour.

9:28 pm
Eric Chapman, a hairdresser who kinda sorta looks like Taylor Hicks, is up next and he entirely over does the Taylor Hicks/Soul Patrol thing. But unlike Taylor he's not AI material and he sings with an awful pained look on his face. Of course, he gets a chorus of nos and ooooh we get our first view of security as Eric is ushered out of the room after he heads for Simon with some hair gel... good times!

9:33 pm
At 6' 3", Anna Kearns, is up next singing the overdone classic "Respect." Of course, she doesn't really add anything to the song, but shes isn't not too bad. They might keep her because she can sing (although not outstandingly) and undoubtedly because of her height... and she's through without Simon's approval (but also without a "no" from our favorite judge).

9:42 pm
16 year old Jordin Sparks brings out of the break and she's pretty darn good. She's also guaranteed to get through because of the great voice and not just a combination of age and an okay voice (like a few other 16 year olds). Randy and Paula love her. Simon isn't as convinced, but she is off to Hollywood. Jordan even drops the fact that she is the daughter of former NFL cornerback Phillippi Duane Starks, making her this season's Nikko Smith. (Added after the show: while checking facts and finding links I found out that Jordin is already pretty well known. She even already has her own entry at Wikipedia)

9:46 pm
And finally we get the montage where they obviously asked everyone who auditioned to sing a particular song, even if they don't know it. This time it's the Pussycat Dolls' "Don't Cha." The perfect song for such a gimmick, but it's getting old, isn't it? They leave us by setting up a guy they dub "Big Red" for the last break.

9:53 pm
The last break is here and they introduce a red-headed fella wearing a bright red guayabera with red flames named Steven Thoen. In a falsetto/head voice he sings "Bohemian Rhapsody" while Paula and Randy just crack up. He eventually stops and says he sings country as well. Hmmm okay. As he leaves he seems very pissed and they play a Exorcist/Tubular Bells-like song... I wonder why?

And with that we're done! Next week: Memphis! The teaser/preview gives some hope for Elvis' town, including a short clip of a Scott Savol-like big man with a voice.

Which do you like better?

Gilligan was sick (a case of the runny butt) this evening, so I walked him and I missed the start of the Wednesday American Idol. I'm watching it now and but I won't be commenting, although it looks like Seattle is going to be a good one. Instead, I'll give you a cool little website: LikeBetter.com.

I don't remember if I have mentioned it before, but it's pretty cool and it's funded by Y Combinator (a pretty cool/slick venture capital firm). Actually, I probably have mentioned it before but I'm too lazy to go back and check... besides they've improved the site since I last visited (which was probably around October or November of last year).

American Idol: Season 6 Part 2

Hour 2.

So far we have only had a couple of good voices, a bunch of terrible ones, and a single crazy breakdown.

And now we have some lady doing a weird Lion from the Wizard of Oz impersonation. She doesn't break down but it's still a memorable performance with a lot of growling.

Next is Stephen Horst (a vocal coach), who looks like a member of the Backstreet Boys. And he's all over the place doing Aerosmith's "I don't want to miss a thing." Paula cracks up at Randy breaking this terrible performance down... and Simon eggs Stephen on. I see a breakdown coming, but there is nothing from our good vocal coach.

Michelle Steingas is up and this is the first contestant I'm betting will make it to the final 24. She's got the look, the personality, and a good enough voice. She reminds me of a not so airheaded Kellie Pickler. Except that she's quitting her job... I hope it's at Burger King and not one of Fortune's 100 best places to work.

Our next contestant, Dayna Dooley, got flown out by her boss to Minneapolis. And boy, did he waste his money. She can belt it out, but trust me, that's not a good thing. Finally, she's headed home without a yellow sheet. Even Jewel couldn't say yes.

Next we've got Matt Sato doing a half crooning, half rocking version of "California Dreamin'." He reminds me of that 16 year old crooner from last season (Will Makar, I had to look him up). I don't like Matt, but everyone gives him a "yes." It sounds like his age, 16, helped.

Rachel Jenkins brings us back from the break, and immediately I'm thinking she's in because of the feel good story they played. Her face reminds me of chubbier Kelly Clarkson. She's not bad but she was a bit off key. And Rachel is in.

Sarah Krueger comes out and her answers seem way too prim and planned. She starts singing and does very well... picking a perfect song for her voice ("Somewhere over the Rainbow"), even adding a few nice interesting changes. Simon puts it well when he said "You have a lot of control over your voice." She definitely has a good chance of making it into the top 24, if not the top 12.

Next we've got a pair of guaranteed breakdowns: Jason Anderson (a singing juggler) and Brenna Kyner (the American Idol superfan).

Jason goes first singing and juggling a devil stick while sporting a creepy stare. As he is being rejected he drops this nugget: "I also dance." After doing a weird tap dance thing, he comes out cursing up a storm like a 3 year old with an adult vocabulary throwing a tantrum. Obviously his mother encourages his delusion by telling him, "You're going to be famous." Riiiiight... maybe if he goes to the top of some watchtower and picks off a few people with a high powered rifle he'll be famous.

Brenna is next and she's awesome singing "Under Pressure." I'm sorry, replace "awesome" with "horrible" in that sentence. Let's just say her 10 years of training and her "degree in vocal performance" have... well... umm... not helped.

And another montage... this time singing Prince's classic "Kiss." Even, our Hollywood bound Perla (the Charo clone) made it into the montage.

Next we've got, Josh Flom, whose dad claims he can "sing like a bird." We'll see about that Pops. Doing a horrible karaoke-like performance of "Had a Bad Day" by Fuel, he seems to think being a rocker means singing with a gruff voice. Randy, even makes a great impersonation of this "rocker-style" voice. He impresses me by quickly learning "Dancing Queen" and doing a great, if short, version of "Copacabana." Finally, Jewel cracks me up by saying "I'm a little worried that you're voice is going to get hurt."

Of course, Josh doesn't make it, but I certainly see his point about singing like Chris Daughtry. Chris' voice was definitely better than Josh's but they both have a lack of "diversity"... a lack which Simon mocked by having Josh sing ABBA's "Dancing Queen."

And with that our first night of American Idol is over!

Of course, we get a classic quote from Simon, about a contestant in the next city, Seattle. I'll just leave you with that:

"You look like one of those creatures that live in the jungle with those massive eyes."

American Idol: Season 6 Part 1

So here we go again with another year of American Idol and I'm still lovin' it. This time I'll be doing running commentary.

We start in Minneapolis:

First up is Jennifer, and it's not looking good. She's akward and doesn't have a good speaking voice... and her singing is so labored and awful. Randy drops this classic line, "No... the singing, no."

Next is Troy "Urban Amish" Benham, a surefire "winner" if you know what I mean. And he seems to be melodically chanting his "song." And he admits he isn't familiar with the show or the judges. The first in a row of butchers.

Leading to: Jesse Holloway doing a great tone deaf version of Celine Dion's Titanic song, and he decides to take a break half way through. Half way through he even gets Paula to say "I can't do this." I'm feeling ya Paula. Finally, he gets the benevolent Jewel to say "Not a chance."

Charles "Apollo Creed" Moody, comes in a boxing getup and sings pretty badly... but not terribly compared to what we've seen so far. Alas, he get's KO'ed.

Now we've got a self described "crack baby," and her speaking voice is promising. Denise Jackson, finally someone worthy of Hollywood. And she's in! She's pretty good vocally, but she would probably need a more confident and affable personality.

And here we have the first AI "montage" and this one is of forgotten lyrics. The epitome of forgotten lyrics is Tashawn Moore, who starts it off with a flat trembling voice. Eventually she just repeats the lines and even ends up whispers the song. And after about a minute or two I just figured out she's singing Prince's "Kiss."

Our next contestant is Perla Meneses who I think has made it this far simply because of her looks and her frighteningly Charo-like personality. She sounds horrible singing Blondie's "Call Me" and she doesn't improve after singing "Hips Don't Lie." Stunningly, everyone gives her a yes, and she's through. She seems destined to be one of those contestants which makes everyone wonder "how did she/he get to Hollywood?" in a few weeks (except that I'm thinking it now.)

Next we have "Flair and Pizzazz"-filled Matthew Volna killing the Johnny Cash classic, "Folsom Prison Blues." So far (and they're pointing it out) there have been no worthy male vocalists. Except that they used that front to setup a Navy seaman, Jarrod Fowler, for success... and he's pretty good. Jewel and Randy, make a good point of telling him to watch out for his "pitchyness." Personally, i feel pitchyness is sign of an untrained, or simply bad, voice trying to hide the fact that they can't keep a note. We'll see which one (untrained voice or bad voice) Jarrod is.

And that's the first hour...

A Reunion among the Top 5?

Back on my old site (before I moved it to blogspot) I wrote about my "Top 5" (technically 4, but I'll explain that later) favorite bands: the Police, Led Zeppelin, Bob Marley (and the Wailers) and the Talking Heads. I never saw any of these bands in person and my chances of seeing any of them (in their original lineups) was slim to none. John Bonham and Bob Marley died when I was four; And the Police and the Talking Heads had arrogant head cases for lead singers (Sting and David Byrne) who did pretty well as solo acts and both had made it fairly clear they had no interest in reuniting.

The closest I would get to seeing any of these bands would be Robert Plant and Jimmy Page collaborating a few years ago (and not even giving John Paul Jones a call) and the Talking Heads and the Police doing short sets at their respective Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions.

Well, rumors now abound of a Police reunion, and I'm giddy as a school girl. Now, I know they'll be a shell of their former selves and Sting will probably want to "jazz up" or, as I like to call it, butcher a few of their classics by bringing in Chris Botti. (In case you don't know who Chris Botti is, think Kenny G with a trumpet... and Sting has used him on tour before.)

Well no matter, I'm desperately looking forward to this.