All-NBA Team: The Remix

Today I wanted a quick topic so I decided to redo the All-NBA team. Now that we're down to a possible ten games left in the season, it's late enough to make changes to the All-NBA team that include playoff results. In other words, it's time to make the All-NBA team actually reflective of this great season that's about to come to a close. The team allows for two forwards, two guard, and one center, with no consideration for which guard and forward spot the players occupy. Meaning, if the two best guards are point guards, then they both make the first team, etc. Let's begin.

The Actual All-NBA First Team:

F: Kevin Durant

F: LeBron James

C: Dwight Howard

G: Kobe Bryant

G: Derrick Rose

At the end of the regular season this was a decent list. Dwayne Wade has surpassed Kobe, and should have been recognized, but the other four spots were inarguable. The playoffs, however, have changed things.

Turbo's All-NBA First Team:

F: Dirk Nowitzki

F: LeBron James

C: Dwight Howard

G: Dwayne Wade

G: Derrick Rose

This is painful. Kevin Durant won his second scoring title and was terrific in the first two rounds of the playoffs before Shawn Marion exposed his need to get in the gym. I understand not wanting to lift weights or having difficulty putting on bulk. But Durant was stuck 30 feet from the basket far too often in the Thunder/Mavs series because Marion was terrific on him and made it easy for the double teams to come. The crazy thing is, as the media looks to crucify this guy for not getting it done, he still averaged 28 points and 9 rebounds a game on 43 percent shooting against the best defensive game plan drawn up against him. If he adds 15 pounds of muscle in the next two years while learning a go-to post move, he leapfrogs everybody and becomes the best player in the league, easily. But Dirk outplayed him and has been the best player in the playoffs, so he has to get the first team nod for this season.

As for Wade, he was better than Kobe this year anyway. It's been a back and forth between these two for the top 2-guard in the league for about seven years now, and neither guy is going to lose any sleep over who is where (well, Kobe might, since he's batshit insane). Kobe got the nod, and it sure seems stupid now since the Heat are about to go to the Finals and Wade's been awesome.

If you don't elect me to the first team,

I will eat your children!

The Actual All-NBA Second Team:

F: Dirk Nowitzki

F: Pau Gasol

C: Amar'e Stoudemire

G: Dwayne Wade

G: Russell Westbrook

As I've already promoted two of these guys, their spots are filled by demotions from the first team. Durant and Kobe are definitely second teamers. But is Pau Gasol really a forward? I guess since Andrew Bynum starts for the Lakers at center we have to call him a forward. And we have to demote him for his disappearing act in the playoffs, coupled with Zach Randolph's romance explosion of awesome basketball. I don't care if your girlfriend dumped you, you make approximately six lifetimes worth of money every year to play basketball. Suck it up.

Turbo's All-NBA Second Team:

F: Kevin Durant

F: Zach Randolph

C: Amar'e Stoudemire

G: Kobe Bryant

G: Chris Paul

OK, I get that Russell Westbrook had a better regular season than Chris Paul. Russell Westbrook had brief stretches this season where he looked like the best guard in the league, and it's possible he'll get there. He's an outstanding competitor, a freakish athlete, a fantastic rebounder, and he gives a crap. But he's not a smart basketball player and doesn't run the point very well. He also gets frustrated too easily, as evidenced by his brooding in Game 2 and his shove of Jason Terry last night. Chris Paul, meanwhile, didn't have as great of a regular season as we're used to seeing from him, but he showed in the playoffs that he's still the best pure point guard in the league. If the Thunder panicked and traded Westbrook for Paul straight up (if the salaries worked, they don't), the Thunder would be the favorites to win the title next year. Going forward, Westbrook is the better player and there's no way the Thunder make that move, but this season, I'd rather have had Paul.

And Zach Randolph? Who saw his monster playoffs coming? Not me. The guy was unstoppable for large stretches, was a team player, a leader, and carried a very limited Grizzlies team to the brink of the Western Finals. For that, he gets a promotion over Gasol.

The Actual All-NBA Third Team:

F: Zach Randolph

F: LaMarcus Aldridge

C: Al Horford

G: Manu Ginobili

G: Chris Paul

Turbo's All-NBA Third Team:

F: Blake Griffin

F: Paul Pierce

C: Al Horford (though I'd prefer Pau Gasol)

G: Manu Ginobili

G: Russell Westbrook

I realize Pau Gasol's playoff no-show probably shouldn't fully eliminate him from the All-NBA teams entirely. I feel he plays enough center to make the team, as a center. He's a better player than Al Horford, who backs his way onto the team by default. But for the season, I'd rather have had Aldridge or Blake Griffin than Gasol, so because of rather limiting judging criteria, and not because I'm slighting him, Gasol gets bumped from the team entirely.

Blake Griffin averaged a 22-12 and was the most exciting player in the league. I know the Clippers only won 32 games, but read that first sentence again. He has to be a third teamer. There's no way to snub the guy. He was a major story this season and these teams need to reflect that to some degree.

This leaves one forward spot for rebounding champ Kevin Love, perennial all-star and Hall of Famer Paul Pierce (best player on a 56 win team), Gasol, who probably deserves to be on the team, and Aldridge, who made the the actual team. Love has the best numbers, but on a bad team. Pierce had the most playoff success. Aldridge had some of both, averaging 22-9 for the season and 21-7 for the playoffs as the best player on a 48 win team. At this point it really comes down to personal preference. Long term, I'd want Love. For this season though, I've got to give the nod to Pierce, as a 56 win team deserves a representative more than a 48 win team, all things relatively equal. And somehow Carmelo Anthony is completely forgotten in all of this because he submarined Denver's season and then didn't mesh well in New York. He'll be back though. He's great.

This logic also applies to the guard slot Ginobili occupies, as the Spurs won 61 games. Ginobili was their best player and they had to have a representative, so it makes sense to give him the nod over Deron Williams or Rajon Rondo, the only guards in the ballpark.

I'd like to think this demonstrates two things. First, the All-NBA teams are fairly stupid and arbitrary. I basically just picked two names out of a hat to fill the third team when about seven guys were deserving. I feel the need to make a fourth team to clean up my snubs.

Turbo's All-NBA FOURTH Team:

F: LaMarcus Aldridge

F: Kevin Love

C: Pau Gasol

G: Deron Williams

G: Rajon Rondo

And since it's my fictional fourth team I can do whatever the hell I want to with the center position. Really, it should be Gasol on the third team and Horford on the fourth, but I'm playing by the rules.

So what exactly was the point in doing all of this crap? I used to really enjoy the Olympics because it gives the United States an opportunity to construct the greatest basketball teams ever assembled and beat the hell out of everyone else. Naturally, we screwed that up in 2000 and 2004, particularly in 2004 when we sent too young LeBron, Wade, Stoudemire, and too old Allen Iverson instead of Kevin Garnett, Kobe, Tracy McGrady, and Jason Kidd, all in their primes. I wake up in a cold sweat about twice a year knowing this actually happened. It's like not pulling the trigger on a great stock deal and then kicking yourself afterwards when all you have is a bronze medal while your friends are driving BMWs. I know those guys elected not to go. I blame them. It shouldn't have happened.

So naturally, I like to form the greatest possible American team at any given time. What is the best way to accomplish this goal? The exercise I just performed. We can identify all the best players and their positions, and then from there figure out their roles and how they fit together. Here we go:

Starters:

F: LeBron James

F: Blake Griffin

C: Dwight Howard

G: Dwayne Wade

G: Chris Paul

Is that not the most frightening mix of five basketball players ever seen at once? It's a never ending fast break that plays defense! After they run up a double digit lead, then you start subbing for defense and shooting.

Second Five:

F: Kevin Durant

F: Kevin Love

C: Al Horford

G: Russell Westbrook

G: Derrick Rose

This is where it gets a little more interesting. Durant is the primary scorer here, Westbrook is 97% interchangeable with Dwayne Wade, Horford gets the nod over Stoudemire for health and age reasons, Love gives you a weird mix of shooting and rebounding perfect for the international game, and Rose does Rose things. Westbrook is forced to play off the ball as the team's third point guard, which enables him to play defense and push the pace, rather than make terrible decisions.

Benchwarmers:

F: Carmelo Anthony

F: LaMarcus Aldridge

The last two spots should be a shooter that has experience in the international game and a post scorer that can help you slow the game down and protect a lead. Carmelo Anthony gets the nod over Kobe for age reasons. This would be his third Olympics, and he was outstanding in 2004 and 2008. LaMarcus Aldridge is a great low post scorer, giving you three post options with Horford and Howard. This means it's almost impossible for this team to get in foul trouble.

This team has everything you want, and has no old men that are going to break down or have an excuse not to go. Naturally, the real 2012 Olympic team won't be this good. But hey, one can dream.

You know what the biggest difference between

Turbo's USA team and us is? We actually were formed!

The Rotation

Yesterday I took the day off from writing and did a bit of reading in between taking old LSAT examinations (had you told me that at age 26 I would still be taking tests and be broke as a joke when I was 17, I would have told you to go to hell), which is what my life has been reduced to as of late. One of the things I like to read is Drew Magary's stuff over at Deadspin, and in his "funbag" column yesterday a reader asked a stupid question about the chances of the UCF (Central Florida) football team ever winning a national championship. Magary's response:

"They (sic) are certain schools that will NEVER win a national title in college football. Ever. Like Duke. Duke will never win a national title in football. Neither will Baylor. Nor will Maryland. (UPDATE: Except that they already did. Well, that won't happen again, I tell you!) Nor will Northwestern. The national title in college football is basically a shared rotation between a dozen or so schools, with Auburn sneaking in a title every half-decade when it doesn't get caught buying coke and hookers for its players. "

Besides the obvious fact that Duke won't be winning any national titles ever, Magary has a good argument. There really are only about a dozen schools that could win the title in a given year, and the sport has more parity and opportunity than ever. So I decided to try and figure out which schools have to be considered in the national championship rotation, because I'm a boring human being that really doesn't want to study for the LSAT today.

If you aren't in the mix for a conference title anymore, regardless of your school's tradition or history, then there's no way you can be considered for the rotation. This sounds obvious, but it eliminates emotional perceptions of contendership. Tennessee is one of five SEC schools with a national title in the BCS era, has the fourth largest stadium in college football (and possibly the greatest stadium in the world) but they have not won the SEC since 1998 and won't be winning it anytime soon, eliminating them from the rotation. Michigan and Notre Dame are in the same class, and Ohio State might be on their way if the NCAA drops Thor's Hammer on them. And even if a school hasn't won it all (Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, Boise State), if they're consistently in the mix they get consideration. Starting with the SEC (as God intended), let's break down the championship rotation by conference.

SEC:

In the Rotation: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU

Could get there: Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas

The SEC is easily the strongest league. LSU and Florida have two titles in the BCS era, Auburn has one and a separate undefeated season in 2004 where they were screwed out of the title game, and Alabama has one.

It's easy to say Tennessee and Georgia aren't Rotation programs because they haven't won the SEC in the last five years. The fact is, those programs just aren't what they were, and a lot of that is because of the four programs ahead of them in the conference. Tennessee has won a BCS title, and Georgia has been a consistently top program during the modern era. Arkansas is rising, but won't get there anytime soon. South Carolina has a championship coach and is always competitive, but competitive is as good as they're ever going to get in this conference, last year notwithstanding. Ole Miss has a great game coach that can't recruit. Mississippi State plays Alabama, Auburn, and LSU every year. Kentucky and Vanderbilt have combined for two wins against Tennessee, a non-rotation school, in my 26 years upon this earth. As great as this conference is, only four schools make the rotation from it.

ACC:

In the Rotation: None

Could get there: Virginia Tech, Florida State, Miami

Florida State dropped out of the rotation because they couldn't get rid of a coach that stopped hacking it about ten years ago. Like Tennessee and Georgia, they have the resources to return to the rotation, but they are not there at this time. Miami is also obviously a threat, but they've been too busy graduating players and having a reputable program to actually stay competitive. Both schools have BCS titles, and both schools send a ton of players to the NFL, but coaching has hurt them in the present-era.

Virginia Tech has done the most to make the rotation, but they always lose a game early in the season when they schedule real opposition in the non-conference portion of the schedule. It's hard to be considered for the rotation when you aren't beating that level of opposition given the opportunity. Even one time will do. Maryland upgraded their coach, but it's way too early to tell if they'll climb because of it. No other school merits discussion in this predominantly basketball conference.

Big Ten (12)

Before I begin, the conference naming shenanigans drive me insane. The Big Ten has 12 teams, and the Big 12 has 10 teams? Aren't these supposed to be athletic associations of institutions of higher learning? The leaders can't even count to 12?

In the Rotation: None

Could get there: most of the teams not coached by Ron Zook

I know this sounds blasphemous, but hear me out. Ohio State is about to get slammed with an assload of sanctions and won't compete for a title for a long time, so their status in the rotation has been reduced to pending at best. Wisconsin is occasionally good, but they can't consistently keep rotation-caliber talent (I like their coach though). To their credit, they lost a BCS bowl to a non-BCS school (TCU), much like Alabama did a few years ago the season before they won the title (Utah), so maybe that bodes well for them this season. I kinda doubt it. Michigan State is a one-hit wonder that has perennially sucked my entire life (thanks for beating Ohio State in 1998 though, that was pretty clutch). Michigan hired the worst possible coach for Big Ten football, but they'll be back in the rotation before long (re: Alabama). Nebraska hasn't been in the rotation discussion for a long time, but maybe they'll be helped by a change of scenery. I'm afraid their degree of difficulty actually went up by the move to the Big Ten, but at least they don't have to beat Texas or Oklahoma (or sometimes both) just to get to the title game anymore. Penn State has the same problem Florida State does, only with less talent. Illinois is coached by Ron Zook. Iowa tries to kill their players in practice, so good luck with recruiting. Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Northwestern? Get outta here.

You have a snowball's chance in hell of entering

the rotation if you're coached by this guy.

Big 12 (10):

In the Rotation: Texas, Oklahoma

Could get there: Oklahoma State

Texas and Oklahoma are always going to be good, and one of them will always win the Big 12. Still, this conference manages to remain interesting. Texas A&M has great fans, a good coach, and tries really hard (and fails really hard). Texas Tech has to fire the one coach that might have ever won there because he handled the wrong kid's concussion poorly. Kansas State has the same problem Penn State has and Florida State had (their coach is the only coach to ever win there, so they're unfirable, only now they're old and can't possibly maintain a rotation-level program). Kansas is a basketball school that fired a successful football coach for player abuse. Oklahoma State has quietly become the third best program in the conference but is best known for a coach that once exclaimed: "I'm a man! I'm 40!" in a press conference. Missouri has become a hotbed for successful quarterbacks, which makes them a danger to Texas and Oklahoma in games, but not a good program overall. Iowa State and Baylor are awful.

Big East: None

Could get there: None

This conference basically serves as a minor league that major programs poach coaching talent from. It might as well not even be a BCS conference. Appalachian State would be an above average program in this conference, and I'm only semi-joking. UConn, Cincinnati, and Louisville have all had noteworthy programs in recent times. The head coaches responsible now work at Maryland, Notre Dame, and Arkansas, respectively.

Pac-10:

Contenders: USC, Oregon

Could get there: California, Washington, Utah

This is Oregon's conference to lose. They have the best coach in college football, which should help them get the type of talent they haven't historically had. They almost won a title this year playing an Auburn team that at any given point in the game had 8 of the top 10 players on the field. I believe this will change. For these reasons I believe Oregon will be the strongest program in the country over the next five years.

That said, USC has been a perennial contender for far too long to leave the rotation yet. In spite of the fact that they're dealing with sanctions, young people want to play there. People outside of the sports writing community, the state of Tennessee, and Al Davis, love USC's coach. California is the default number 3 program, and they're always good, never great. Stanford had a great run last year but their coach is gone. Washington has jumped from doormat to competitive. Arizona State has a national championship coach and a better chance to get top talent than the most similar situation in the country to theirs, South Carolina. New arrival Utah is the school with the best chance to enter the rotation out of the outsiders. Colorado has to be mentioned only because they won a title in the nineties, and because they used to have a female kicker.

Other:

Rotation: Boise State

Could get there: Notre Dame (cringe)

Boise State has built a gaudy record in the terrible WAC, but they've backed it up in nonconference and bowl play. Their move to the Mountain West should have helped them take their program to the next level, but the Pac-10 adding Utah made their move a lateral one at best, as they switch from having one hard conference game (BYU) to having...one hard conference game (TCU). The real shame is that those four schools, along with Hawaii, Fresno State, UTEP, and maybe traditionally independent Air Force, couldn't have formed some sort of outsider superfriends conference that would have legitimized all of their programs. They could have called it the Big West or something.

And Notre Dame hasn't been relevant in a long time. That place eats coaches up and spits them out. It's where dreams go to die.

So that's it: nine schools are in the championship rotation as of right now. Eleven or twelve more could get there based on tradition or resources, but can't be considered there right now. So Magary was right, there is a rotation, and if your team isn't in it, it's kind of a stupid sport. But if your team is in it, I can imagine nothing better.

Note: I purposely mentioned no coaches by name (well, besides Ron Zook, but he doesn't really count) in a post that, in essence, is almost entirely about coaches. I hate the way coaches are revered in this sport, it's probably the worst thing about it. They're just old overpaid guys doing a job we'd all do given the opportunity. Much like a CEO, they provide an identifiable face for an organization, take an inordinate amount of credit for success, an inordinate amount of blame for failure, and an inordinate amount of money for either.

This Title Sucks

You'll have to forgive me

for thinking this might suck.

If you follow my twitter (that's @winefarts, if you don't) you might be aware that I was dragged to see "Bridesmaids" yesterday morning. I typically fast forward through commercials so I'd never even seen a preview for this movie, so the only reason I knew it existed was social media. The aggregate movie reviews sites I follow said it was good, and a couple of my girlfriend's coworkers said it was "The Hangover, now with chicks!" Other than that, I'd never heard of it. Considering how many millions of dollars film companies spend on these films, there might be incentive to actually worry about this problem.

First of all, the title totally sucks. What heterosexual man would ever voluntarily go to see a movie called "Bridesmaids" if he'd never heard of it? It sounds like the worst crap chick-flick ever if you know nothing else about the movie. Apparently the original title was "Maid of Dishonor," also bad, but much, much better. At least it sounds like a comedy with that title. Kristen Wiig plays a down on her luck mid-30s woman whose best friend is getting married, and the whole movie centers on how badly and forced the pre-marriage events such as showers and trips can go with the wrong group of people. Even if you don't like Kristen Wiig (I don't think she's great, but at least she's original) the cast is strong enough to get by. Melissa McCarthy is hilarious and I'm going to start watching Mike and Molly now (never thought I'd say that). The movie is really funny, but it's not The Hangover.

It's very difficult for Hollywood to rely on word of mouth to get their message across if every single person thinks every single movie that is pretty funny is The Hangover. When people say that, they sound like this season's American Idol judges. Not everyone is fantastic, and not everyone can win. The Hangover is the funniest movie of all time, or continuing the comparison, it's the Carrie Underwood of comedy movies. No movie is close, and every time I hear someone say that a movie is "The Hangover, with more boobs!" or whatever, I generally stop listening to that person. There is a reason that every commercial for every comedy film compares said film to The Hangover. It hasn't been topped. Even its sequel doesn't stand a chance to top it. It took six years for a film to come out that was funnier than Old School, and it will likely take at least that long to top The Hangover. So just stop it with the weak The Hangover comparisons already. Unless you're going to say things like "this movie is 60% as funny as The Hangover," in which case you won't sound like a giant dumbass.

Typically, my girlfriend and I mitigate not seeing previews on TV by getting to the theater early and watching them there. This approach would have worked for Bridesmaids if that preview had even happened in one film we've seen this year. The movie executives that choose which previews appear in what films managed to fool even themselves with that terrible title.

So how many other good movies did I not see/see years later simply because of terrible titles? Let's take a trip over to the IMDB top 250 and find out. The number is the ranking, based on user votes (for those unwilling or unable to click the link).

1. The Shawshank Redemption: This is the one that bothers me the most because it really might be the greatest movie (can 600,000 people that give a shit really be wrong?) ever and I didn't see it for 15 (!) years because of the stupid title. What is a Shawshank? How is it redeemed? These admittedly stupid questions with no answers haunted me for years until I finally watched the movie.

19. City of God: It's not really a bad title, I just wanted to point out that this movie is ranked 19, because no one I know has ever seen it, and it's a really great movie.

23. The Matrix: I could have written this entire blog post 12 years ago with most of the same criticisms concerning this movie. The difference is, this movie is extremely difficult to preview without spoiling anything. I thought this movie looked remarkably stupid in the ninth grade, as action movies tended to be back then. I had to be dragged to see it. The problem with the Matrix previews is that they all centered on the scene on the rooftop where the second Agent is shooting at Neo because it was the most glaring example of bullet-time. It was really about the 76th best scene in the movie and totally forgettable in context, so maybe in retrospect it shouldn't have been the focus of AN ENTIRE AD CAMPAIGN! It ended up not mattering at all, as everyone's seen The Matrix and they ended up making about 50 gazillion dollars from it, but it's still an example of crappy marketing that I can't ignore. And again, nothing wrong with the title.

26. The Silence of the Lambs: This is a great title only because the movie itself makes it a great title. In a vacuum, it's actually a very bad title inferior to all of the sequels' titles (Hannibal, Red Dragon, etc.).

52. The Pianist: This is the worst title in this history of film. The executives could have said "we have an awesome WWII Nazi-occupation movie" and named it ANYTHING INVOLVING THAT. Instead, they went with playing up Adrien Brody's character, a concert pianist, a job that might be one notch higher than "interior decorator" on the manly scale, during the time before Adrien Brody won an Oscar (for this role, no less) and he was just that ugly guy with the huge nose. Great movie though.

61. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: I own this film, not because it's any good, but because when I was in college it was sacrilege to say anything negative about this movie, and uncool not to own it. It's actually a pretty boring movie, not unlike all of Jim Carrey's dramatic attempts. But look at how terrible that title is. "Mental White-Out" is a better title, and that's me trying to come up with the dumbest title I can that's still better than "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" without the aid of drugs in under one minute.

62. Requiem for a Dream: I was going through my friend's movie collection Freshman year of college, spotted this movie, and this conversation ensued (slightly paraphrased):

Me: "Requiem for a Dream? What's that?"

Him: "Oh trust me, you don't want to watch that."

Me: "Why not? You own it, it can't be that bad, right?"

Him: "Oh, it's not bad at all. You'll just be depressed for the rest of the weekend."

Me: "Now I have to see it. You've gotten me interested."

And that's how I saw it. The title is meaningless but interesting enough to get people to randomly watch the movie, which I guess makes the title good in a way. And like ETOTSM (like hell I'm typing that again), I only own it because it's cool to own it. I'll probably never watch it again.

73. Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Can you imagine hearing about this movie for the first time 25 years after it came out, with no knowledge of Monty Python, from a person that thought it was the greatest movie of all time (as many do)? That was my initial experience with this movie. And all I could think about was how stupid the title was and how accordingly stupid the movie was going to be. Ruined my whole experience.

75. Raging Bull: I don't care if that was Jake LaMotta's nickname and it was absolutely the best title for the film, there are in fact no actual bulls present in this movie. Can you imagine how disappointed this made a generation of nine year olds/rodeo fans?

130. Snatch. Need I say more?

208. In Bruges: I haven't seen this movie because I'm actually in the overwhelming minority of Americans that has actually visited Bruges, Belgium, and I can say firsthand I would never watch anything depicting people in that city. They are very nice people and I'm sure Bruges is a wonderful place to live if you're 70. It doesn't matter what this film is about, it's almost certainly going to be boring.

219. Big Fish: Unless the movie is a comedy about a fat guy named Fish, this title makes no sense. They could have named it "Ewan McGregor Tries Alabama Accent and Fails Miserably" and it would have been a better title.

OK, so there aren't all that many great movies with bad titles. In fact, a lot of titles of great movies are clever, like Good Will Hunting. That's all the more reason it drives me so crazy when movies have dumb titles. A while back there was a boring Adam Sandler movie with Drew Barrymore called "50 First Dates" that would have made about $50 million (reasonable estimate) more if they'd called it "Who the Hell Are You?". I'm not a marketing genius but I feel like that one hurt pretty bad.

I'm not done. "The Never-Ending Story" is a terrible title because it:

A. Lies to you

B. Makes you assume it's going to be boring

How about "Troll 2"? This film is widely considered to be the worst film ever made, and the title helps that determination out due to the film actually containing no trolls, anywhere. "Hell-Raiser" should have been a comedy about drunk truckers, not a horror film. And what the hell is "Bangkok Dangerous" supposed to be? An action movie? A porn? An action porn? Who the hell knows? Maybe this helps:

Or maybe not.

If any movie executives need help naming their properties (hint: you do), you know where to find me.

500 Channels and There's Not A Damn Thing Worth Watching

Lately my girlfriend and I have discovered that quality TV that both of us can stand is difficult to come across. Sure, there are some excellent shows like Breaking Bad that come across 13 weeks out of the year. But that's a paltry 13 hours per year, and maybe 5 shows are even worth that small bit of commitment. The Killing might be good, but so far it's slow and boring. Mad Men is awful and I don't get its success. Setting alone does not make a show good, I'm sorry to inform you. Justified is allegedly pretty good but its not really going to draw my girlfriend in. The Walking Dead might be the best show on TV, but there have only been six episodes and it's a show about fricking ZOMBIES. Since the start of 2010 we've lost:

Lost: I didn't watch it but Lord knows the rest of the country did so it counts: Ended

Terriers: A really good show with a really terrible title that no one watched: Canceled

24: The end of an era, and not a moment too soon: Ended

Two and a Half Men: It's easy to hate on this show because it's so formulaic yet so popular, but I pretty much watch the syndicated old episodes every night because it is entertaining and there really aren't any alternatives when it's on: Star Meltdown/permanent change

Guiding Light/All My Children: Just kidding: Canceled.

I'm no TV critic but that's three shows I did watch and a fourth I could have theoretically been watching suddenly removed from the system. So between the sporadic nature of TV airing and the removal of a bunch of good shows at once, we had to do something, so we become Netflix instant view customers. This was an awesome decision, at first. It enabled us to watch:

Damages: Good, not great, show that evidently is Satellite-only now for some reason.

Prison Break: Thoughtless drivel (at least after about the first 10 episodes, which are very well written) that jumps the shark but is still entertaining.

Arrested Development: 2nd best sitcom ever after Seinfeld.

Cheers: 3rd best sitcom ever.

Sons of Anarchy: Looking forward to watching this even though I couldn't care less about motorcycles or the people that ride them.

And that's basically it. It's a bunch of stuff I've now already seen and one new show I'm only somewhat excited about. The movies on there generally suck, with an occasional random gem. So what does that leave us to watch? Should we get HBO again? When we had it, it kinda sucked and I don't miss it. The Wire and The Sopranos were worth extra money. Treme, Game of Thrones, and Boardwalk Empire aren't. So HBO's out.

Obviously I watch plenty of sports. But sports are not on 24/7, only bad talking head shows about sports play all the time. Not to mention the dirty little secret that about 80% of sporting events are dead time or commercials, unless you use a DVR, in which case less time is wasted and the problem with finding something to watch ends up becoming accordingly compounded. So what's left? Together, my girlfriend and I can watch either:

A: Law and Order: SVU: Does this show really need an explanation? Always watchable, never great, a time-killer.

B: Game Shows: Wheel, Jeopardy, and Family Feud are the only ones watchable, and Price Is Right comes on at a terrible time and obviously isn't worth recording.

C: Reality TV: And this is the part where I want to get rid of cable and work on an oil-rig or something.

Reality TV essentially distills the worst parts of our nation's culture into 30 minute segments that are such train wrecks that you can't look away. Obviously, there are a few shows that are a little bit better than that. You have American Idol, where teenagers look to fast track music careers, and obviously that's fine, even if it's unwatchable live and you have to fast forward 40 minutes of every hour with the DVR. You have The Real World, where seven or eight really stupid young adults, often with personal problems that no one gives a shit about, come together in a major city to fight with one another and fail to hold their liquor. You have Jersey Shore, which was quite entertaining at first until these people became celebrities and got really stale. And you have The Real World/Road Rules challenge shows, which are constantly riveting and should be on twice a week year-round like professional wrestling. Apparently, people still watch Survivor, the Apprentice, and The Amazing Race, but I only watch those if I'm trying to fall asleep at 9:30.

Then, there are the celeb-drama reality shows like Surreal Life, Celebrity Rehab, Real Housewives of *insert stupid place that's trying to be stereotyped here*, and anything involving a Kardashian. The Kardashian shows are so scripted that they might as well be sitcoms, only they're so bad that they couldn't get away with being sitcoms. These are all so unwatchable that they fail to merit any discussion at all.

And then there are the shows that we watch, not because they're good, but because there's nothing else on: Hoarders, My Strange Addiction, Freaky Eaters, Taboo, Sister Wives, and a show I've always hated but now watch because of all the above reasons discussed: COPS.

Here's my rundown of each show. Is that something you might be interested in?

Hoarders: I've tweeted this before; if you need to feel better about your own life, you should watch this show, because there are always bigger losers than you. Basically, this show depicts people as having some void in their life, and then deciding it's a great idea to fill that void with either material possessions, animals, or both. In actuality, it shows that people are too god-damn lazy to take their trash out, and/or too god-damn stupid to realize their trash is actually trash. Either way, years pass, their homes are unlivable, they have no social life at all, their families hate them, and this show is in no way depressing. The people that hoard animals are 100 times worse. There's one episode where this obese man has like 35 rabbits destroying his house, that he's renting from unsuspecting yuppies. The man shouldn't just be evicted, he should be jailed for destruction of property, but instead he has a "disorder". They clean the house up, he gets therapy, and he STILL GETS TO LIVE THERE! Another lady lives on disability but can't stop adopting dogs from a shelter, to the point where she can't feed or clothe her teenage daughter. Most of the animal episodes are about cat ladies, which again, merit no discussion.

My Strange Addiction: This show takes on people that can't stop violating a social norm. One episode involves a college-age girl that isn't bad looking who is unable to stop sucking her thumb. My prediction for her life is that she ends up adopting 30 cats and is featured on Animal Hoarders, giving her the rare distinction of being a two-time reality TV loser. Another episode features a she-male that can't stop bodybuilding. My question is, are not all bodybuilders addicted to bodybuilding? Is that not required to actually be a bodybuilder? Does addiction have any real meaning at all in this case? But the best episode of this show, or any show really, features this gem of a human being:

You're probably wondering if what she's got in her hand headed to her mouth is in fact what it looks like. Well, it is. This woman eats toilet paper. And apparently a lot of it. A half a roll a day according to the show. She apparently likes the way it dissolves in her mouth. So naturally my girlfriend and I, with our "don't knock it until you try it" mantra, decide that we too would like to experience the alleged magic of eating toilet paper. Our verdict: it's really gross and quite possibly the dumbest behavior one can engage in. It's basically like eating cotton, and your gag reflex immediately kicks on. Unless you're this woman, who must be incredible at oral sex since she clearly has no gag reflex at all.

Freaky Eaters: Basically it's just My Strange Addiction, but limited to weird eating habits, like drinking 30 sodas a day. Difficult to try something like that without ending up in the hospital. Maybe one day I'll try to drink 30 MGD cans, at least I'll be drunk and sick, as opposed to just sick. And no, I don't drink MGD, it was just the first shitty beer that popped into my head.

Taboo: This show tends to involve disgusting rituals of aboriginal tribes, such as the tribe that covers their young boys with thousands of tiny cuts so that the scarring looks like croc scales. Because that sounds fun and attractive. I would totally not fight a guy from that tribe though, they can't possibly think anything hurts after going through that. Basically, this show is an exercise in trying not to vomit.

Sister Wives: This show documents the lives of a Mormon polygamist family. It was interesting for about 10 minutes, but it turns out that Mormons, while extremely nice people, aren't very fun to watch on TV. The idea behind the show is to answer questions about a polygamist lifestyle, but it fails to answer any of my questions, such as:

1. How does a guy go about dating when he is already married to three other women? Does he essentially say to the first three wives: "Bitches, you're not pleasing me, so I'm going to go date a 24 year old and then MARRY HER and bring her into this home with you."? How does that work?

2. How does a guy afford four luxury automobiles and a mansion when he has four wives and twenty kids? Was he a Mormon pop-star from the eighties that no one knows about?

3. How does a guy manage to be confident enough to land his wives without any help from alcohol or drugs? This question would probably be answered by the answer to question two.

So, not unlike Terriers, they got the name of the show wrong. The show should be called "Biggest Badass Ever", if "badass" were an appropriate word for a Mormon person to use or be described as, which it isn't. Again, it's possible these questions I have would have been answered had I kept watching, but I was too busy catching reruns of COPS to stick with it.

COPS: Only the greatest show of all time. As you know, during this program, either a COP is being a huge dick to minorities, or someone does something incredibly stupid that gets them arrested. No one looks good on this show. And then of course, Campus P.D. takes the effective COPS formula and waters it down to show rent-a-cops citing 19 year olds for underage consumption, which is a stupid law that will never be changed because no one over 21 gives a shit. Where Campus P.D. shines is that in approximately 70 percent of all clips there is a hot, scantily-clad co-ed that is being questioned or detained, which is a decided upgrade from scantily-clad meth-toothed old people. So there's that.

Enjoy your weekend!

NBA Playoffs Thoughts

Most people I know don't care one bit about the NBA for various clichéd reasons. "It's predictable." "They're all thugs." "They're too good." "They don't try hard until the end of games." "There's no contact." "I prefer college."

My thinking - it is predictable, but only because the playoff system the NBA has in place actually does its job. There aren't more thugs than any other professional sport other than baseball. They are really good, which is kind of the point, although I can see where this leads back to predictability. During the regular season, starters don't try that hard until the end of games because the season's too long, I'll give that criticism some merit as well. There's no serious contact, because it's basketball, and it's kind of hard to have serious contact in a sport where by definition a foul involves contact. Those of you that prefer college? That's a post for another day. All I'll say is that college basketball is an unwatchable product unless you're a degenerate gambler, in which case it's the best thing you could ever hope for.

The point of all of that is that these NBA playoffs have only been predictable if you've watched the league religiously since you were seven years old (for those who need to know how old I am, that would be 1991). Those of us that have know when a team gets old in a young man's game, that team falls, and falls hard. The Lakers were the favorites entering these playoffs because suckers didn't realize they were old. While no one could predict Pau Gasol would get dumped and play like crap all playoffs (that's what I heard), the rest of the team didn't look as good as last year, while three teams jumped into contendership thanks to free agency signings, trades, and maturity (and all three are still alive, so by definition they are in fact contenders now). Only the Mavericks were ever thought to be contenders before this season. Every changing of the guard in the NBA since 1980 with the exception of the Lakers leapfrogging everybody by drafting Magic (and two years later, Worthy) has involved at least one team of the previous generation getting old. The Pistons won in 1989 and 1990 breaking through because Jordan's Bulls weren't ready and the Lakers and Celtics lost key players due to injury (read: they got old). The Bulls then improved, swept the Pistons in 1991 and beat the Lakers in 5 games in a very convincing title run through the league's 4 previous champions, which sounds good on paper until you realize that both the Lakers and Pistons were old.

The Rockets obviously won in 1994 and 1995 under dubious circumstances involving the NBA's best player trying minor league baseball during his basketball prime (I saw one of Jordan's three home runs for the Barons in person and it was one of the most random cool sporting experiences one could ever have), so we can throw that out. Not to mention, those Rockets teams were pretty good, and it's a shame we didn't get to see them against Jordan's Bulls. My memories might have been tainted by the fact I owned Hakeem the Dream basketball shoes in 4th grade, which saved me probably a thousand dollars over the course of my life as they taught me $140 basketball shoes actually don't help your jump shot.

Of course, the Bulls won three more, meaning they had an eight year, six championship run as the premier team in the league, unlike anything seen in the modern NBA. All other timeframes had two or more real contenders (Lakers/Sixers/Celtics, Lakers/Pistons/Celtics, Bulls, Lakers/Spurs, Pistons/Spurs, Lakers/Celtics). The Bulls were the only team that could win the title in the years that they did. But eventually, they got old, which broke them up far more than infighting with the GM or Phil Jackson not being resigned. They had no more title runs left in them.

Fast forward to 2011. The Spurs, winners of four championships in the post Jordan-era, had the league's best record this season. Traditionally, this would require a great deal of respect from opponents. But the Grizzlies coach, Lionel Hollins, actually tanked games at the end of the season so the Grizzlies would face the Spurs. They did face them, and they won convincingly. Hollins was blasted at the time by the talking heads for publicly disrespecting the great Spurs dynasty, but he deserves a lot of credit for seeing what was becoming increasingly obvious as the playoffs rolled around:

The Spurs were really, truly, painfully old.

Meanwhile, the Lakers, winners of five titles in the post-Jordan era, had trouble dealing with an injury depleted Hornets team, in a series where Chris Paul looked like he might regain his status as the best American point guard in time for the Olympics. That Hornets team was, at best, the 14th best team in the NBA this season. If that didn't forebode the ass-whupping (or evisceration, depending on your level of sophistication) the Mavericks were about to put on the Lakers, I don't know what would.

The Mavericks really aren't that great, as we're going to see tonight and the rest of this series. The truth is, the Lakers got old.

Finally, the Heat, the new Big Three, the rockstars, the "what is wrong with the NBA" team of the moment, beat a still competent Celtics team in five games. Both teams have a boatload of All-Stars and terrible benches. Neither team could possibly win the title this season. The Heat are the worst team left standing. The Celtics of the past three years would have beaten them. You know what that says to me?

The Celtics: OLD!

So when people say this has been the most unpredictable playoffs in recent memory, they're right. But they're not that right. In March I got to see the Thunder hammer the Wizards in Verizon Center. I told my friend who came to the game with me: "you just watched the 2011 NBA Champions." He told me there was no way the Spurs or Lakers wouldn't win. He clearly forgot that those teams are old.

The weird thing is, I still believe the Thunder will win the title, in spite of the fact that Russell Westbrook has devolved into a bad version of Dwayne Wade. In March, he was the best guard in basketball, and I don't think it was that close. Sure, Derrick Rose won the MVP and Dwayne Wade has been incredible, but Westbrook was transcendent in March.

In spite of Westbrook's regression, the Thunder still only lost Game 1 on the road by nine on a night when their coaching staff forgot to come to the arena. The plan to single Nowitzki and force him to win on his own will work over seven games, but with Joey Crawford refereeing and calling an enormous number of fouls, it's up to coaches to adjust to those conditions. If Dallas wins this series, it'll be because Carlisle badly outcoached Brooks. But the real reason the Thunder will win the series? The Mavericks are prehistorically old. They're actually the oldest team in the entire NBA by average age.

And forget about the East winner beating either team. The Bulls were exposed last night for what they are: strong defensively, broken offensively. The Heat will be run off the floor by either West bench, and truthfully, it's doubtful they can even beat the Bulls anyway.

How do dumb people end up in charge of large organizations?

If you read Bill Simmons at all, you probably know that one of his ongoing jokes at present is his consistent bashing of the Minnesota Timberwolves' beleaguered GM, David Kahn. Up until last night, I never really thought he was as dumb as his reputation states. Yes, he drafted Ricky Rubio without making sure he would be willing to leave Europe, and yes, he drafted Jonny Flynn over Stephen Curry and Brandon Jennings. Dumb moves, for sure. But his comments after the NBA Draft Lottery last night that I just saw on SportsCenter have launched Mr. Kahn into the discussion for the dumbest person working in sports today.

Kahn: "This league has a habit, and I am just going to say habit, of producing some pretty incredible story lines," Kahn said. "Last year it was Abe Pollin's widow and this year it was a 14-year-old boy and the only thing we have in common is we have both been bar mitzvahed. We were done. I told Kevin: 'We're toast.' This is not happening for us and I was right."

First of all, David Kahn, you're not just disparaging the NBA with your remarks, you're disparaging Ernst and Young, only probably the most reputable major accounting firm operating in the United States today. Ernst and Young handles the lottery process, not commissioner David Stern or his cohort Adam Silver. Then you drag a teenage boy with a nerve disease down with some indecipherable remark about not having anything in common with him? Who the hell cares if you have anything in common with him? What does that have to do with anything? And do you really believe that the NBA rigged the lottery to get the number one pick to WASHINGTON? Clearly, you've never lived here. Nobody helps Washington.

I'm sure David Kahn didn't mean any ill will toward any of these people, and made his remarks out of frustration that he didn't get the number one pick. But did anyone explain to him that having the worst record only guarantees a 25 percent chance at the number one pick and only guarantees the number four pick? He's supposed to be IN CHARGE OF AN NBA TEAM! Mike Tirico and Doris Burke have a better understanding of the lottery process than this guy.

The comments might make a bit more sense if there were a clear superstar to take first in the upcoming draft. There isn't. Kahn's already passed on two point guards in Jennings and Curry (OK, not a point guard, but close enough) that are already better than Kyrie Irving will ever be. Derrick Williams had one monster game in the NCAA tournament and everyone thinks he's the next Blake Griffin. These are the consensus two best players in this draft and the Wolves are going to get one of them. Whoever the Wolves end up with, won't help them. So what difference does it make if they pick first or second? They actually are saving money by picking second.

So having logically picked apart his comment, the true reason I have a problem with it is that it naively undermines the credibility of the NBA league office right as a labor dispute is about to begin. Less informed observers (and sadly, a percentage of ESPN personalities) are going to actually believe this dreck. It's one thing if someone like Bill Simmons invents draft lottery conspiracy theories. Hell, I watched the 1985 Lottery and it looks pretty rigged. Maybe it was rigged. It was clearly a stupid way to go about operating the lottery and, accordingly, they went to an independent firm to properly manage the event. But for a working GM of a team to suggest such chicanery is highly inappropriate.

For a man in a position of authority in this league to say something this stupid calls for his immediate resignation, as he has offended the accounting community, the teenage boys with nerve diseases community, and the people with brains community. Will this blog post be the most uproar heard about this? I hope not.

I'm baaaaaack!

In the last nine months or so I know I've written zero blog posts and that's really either sort of awesome, or sort of pathetic, depending on how you look at it. In that time I've moved, discovered love, found what I want to become professionally, drank less, fucked more, tweeted plenty, bought a new couch and TV, become a shit ton less interesting, and basically changed completely as a human being.

In spite of all of that it's an enlightening proposition that none of that matters when determining how I feel about the idiotic NFL lockout, the incredible NBA playoffs, or the giant clusterfuck that the UFC stumbled into with their incredible mishandling of matchmaking over the last couple of months. Sports are a weird thing in that they're always interesting regardless of what's going on in them. Perhaps that's why the blandest, most horribly boring individuals are the people that tend to cover sports in this country. I can understand a need to crave attention in a society that seems to dote on a given few, sometimes without regard for talent. I've been there, and it's a crappy place to be.

I might be back, but I'll be damned if I'm going to write with any sort of an agenda. I'm going to law school, and this is just going to be an exercise helping me to attain that goal. I just want to have a good time and write some decent stuff, for lack of a better term. This blog initially was a place for me to place my strongest opinions in a real format and that hasn't changed. Here's hoping that the willingness to do that for free won't waver this time.