the 1987 Fiesta Bowl: the game that changed college football forever

We all know what happenned.

Penn State and Miami met at Sun Devil Stadium in Arizona on January 2nd, 1987. Both teams had gone through the regular season undefeated and were the consensus #1 and 2 in every poll. Despite being largely unfavored, Penn State beat Miami 14-10, by forcing 7 turnovers, 5 of them Vinny Testaverde interceptions (including a timely goal line pick to seal the game).

How did this happen? Why did this happen? What was the result of this?

In the 1986 College Football season, there were 4 major bowl games -- The Rose Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, and The Cotton Bowl. All 4 of these bowl games had conference tie-ins, and thus had to select the winner(s) of whatever conference(s) they were tied to. The Rose Bowl was tied to the Big Ten (which still had 10 members) and the Pac-10. The Orange Bowl was tied to the Big 8 Conference (now makes up 8 of the Big 12 teams). The Sugar Bowl was tied to the SEC. The Cotton Bowl was tied to the Southwest Conference (busted up in the early 90's, 4 teams went to complete the Big 12).

Penn State and Miami, the two teams who went through the regular season undefeated, were both independent at the time. The match-up would be split up if either of the schools decided to accept a berth to one of the four major bowls.

This left two bowls in a bidding war for the rights to play these two teams -- The Fiesta Bowl in Arizona, and the Citrus Bowl (now capitol one bowl) in Orlando. As the two bowls tried desperately to outbid one another for this game, the Fiesta Bowl came up with a plan that has since infiltrated its way into every other single bowl game. They accepted sponsorship, titular sponsorship at that, from Sunkist, in order to pay the sum to host the two teams.

I don't think there is a bowl game out there now that is not sponsored, not even the blandly titled "bcs championship game" goes without a sponsor (it's FedEx this time around).

This idea of pitting a #1 and #2 against each other every year became a popular idea, namely because college football had no playoff system then, and shows no signs of wanting one now. Co-National Champions after both the 1990 and 1991 seasons even further expressed this need to attempt to pit the two "best" teams against one another. The Bowl Coalition was formed for the 1992 season to try and remedy this situation.

The Bowl coalition consisted of six games with guaranteed representatives coming from six conferences -- the Southwest conference, the Big East, the Big 8, the SEC, the ACC, and Notre Dame (yeah, I went there). The Rose Bowl was not a part of this because it has tie-ins with two conferences, as opposed to the one tie-in most of the other bowls have. The Big East, having formed for the 1991 season, had no direct tie-in to any bowl game, but rather was selected much like an at-large team, a system that continues to this day.

Ironically, the Bowl coalition prevented Penn State from a shot at the 1994 season's National championship. Penn State, having recently joined the Big Ten, went directly to the Rose Bowl, leaving also undefeated Nebraska to play someone else. Both teams won their bowl games and finished the season undefeated.

The Penn State snub along with the guaranteed Notre Dame bid (they went 6-4-1 for the 1994 season, got crushed by Colorado in the 1995 Fiesta Bowl) gave the Bowl coalition a short life. It was supplanted by the Bowl Alliance, but that was basically the same thing (though the Southwest and Big 8 conferences were replaced for the 1996 season by the Big 12), the Rose Bowl was still not involved, which left the Big Ten and Pac-10 out of it. Starting with the 1998 season, they finally joined, creating the "bowl championship series" (I suppose the title does not lie, there is a series of bowls, and there must be champions of each bowl game).

Alas, as I began to ramble about the de-evolution/evolution of the division 1 football title, I forgot to mention an important point. As the title game started to become more directly tied to conferences/notre dame, it became important for the independent football teams to join conferences. The Big East added football (it had already existed, though its schools played football independently). Penn State joined the Big Ten. South Carolina joined the SEC. The only "important" independent to remain so was notre dame, who could do so because of special priveleges it had with the bowl system (after shunning it entirely for 50 years).

The 1987 Fiesta Bowl was the last matchup between an independent number 1 and independent number 2. The 1989 Fiesta Bowl also featured an all-independent matchup, though #1 Notre Dame was pitted against #3 West Virgina. Miami (also still independent) was #2, but several factors kept them from playing in this game -- namely Miami had already lost to Notre Dame that season, and Miami as a team tried to personally kill every member of Notre Dame's roster (something you'd think I'd support, but alas,I'd rather pros do it than thugs).

So yeah, Penn State won the 1987 Fiesta bowl, and with it the national title from the 1986 season, but they ended up taking part in an event which forever changed the sport they played.

Good News Everyone: The bsc has made its selections!!!

Let me start this off by stating that I am not pissed that Penn State did not get selected for a bsc bowl. I am a little bit puzzled, but I am not pissed -- Iowa beat them in the head to head matchup, and thus they should go instead.

Now, for an idea of what I think of the bsc, replace "Limp Bizkit" in the following song whenever it comes up.



Now, onto the review of what the bsc has done this year.


-- First off, the Big 12 and SEC championship games became the de facto semi final for the "national championship" game, for some unknown reason besides the fact that Big 12 and SEC fans hype their conferences more than any of the others. I'm sorry there's stuff to do in the rest of the country, I really am, but that doesn't mean you have to take it out on the everyone else.

-- Who's piece of shit idea was it to put TCU up against Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl? The point of having non-bsc conference teams make it to bsc bowls is so they can beat those bsc conference teams. And yes, it can happen, yes, it has happenned. Utah and Boise State have both done it before. So yes, this is a matchup of unbeatens, but the fact that neither of these teams is playing Georgia Tech, Florida, or Iowa (putting them up against an unbeaten Cincy would also be pointless in my opinion) just means that the bsc has nothing but disdain for any and all schools outside of the "big 6" (and really, they hate the big east now too, so maybe the big 5 is better). The bsc's shitty ass futile attempt to de-legitamize any kind of chance that either of these teams has for a national title just further legitamizes the need for a playoff system. Frankly, I think Texas may not even be the best team in the state, I think TCU might be better, but they're not gonna have any chance of proving it. I'd like to say maybe they make this the semi, and they play the winner of the other game, but that would leave out a possibly undefeated cincy.

-- Did Florida really have to go to the Sugar Bowl? I realize the SEC has ties to the game, but the SEC's automatic qualifier is playing for the "national title". That should make Florida up for grabs by any other bowl. Truth be told, the matchup should be interesting against Cincy. Florida's dirty ass defense against Cincinatti's precision offense should be fun.

-- Why does Iowa go to the Orange bowl? This one is completely at-large and completely under control by the entire bowl committee. Ohio State is already going to the Rose Bowl, Iowa can go anywhere. So why not send Iowa to the Fiesta bowl against TCU? Put Boise State in the Orange bowl against Georgia Tech (automatic bid and conference tie in, not gonna make any complaints). It's not like Big Ten teams can't go to the Fiesta Bowl, in fact Penn State (passed over, but whatevs) has a rich and long history at the Fiesta Bowl, including the 1987(?) national championship against Miami.

-- Why is every commentator stating alternative championship scenarios as "if Texas didn't get selected for the national championship game, who should be?" Is it really that safe to assume Alabama is that far ahead of everybody else? If that is the case, just give them the title already and let everyone else play their bowls (it's happenned before, when Nixon screwed Penn State out of a title in '69 and declared Texas the champion after defeating Arkansas -- one of the few things I didn't like about his presidency). Yes, Texas almost lost their conference title game, but they won it, which is what they needed to do to win their conference. You know what, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnatti also did what they needed to do to win their conferences, and they, along with Alabama, all remained undefeated in doing so.

-- Random thought, since when does winning the SEC put you in the national title game? Yeah, I know SEC teams beat Ohio State two years in a row to win the national title, but those weren't that good of Ohio State teams. They may have won the Big Ten those years, but the Big Ten wasn't very strong those years. Penn State was burdened by Anthony Morelli and Michigan began its tailslide into mediocrity. If Ohio State didn't win the conference those seasons, it would have been the ultimate excercise in futility considering their rosters. And you know what, those two SEC teams, they weren't just SEC teams, they were GOOD teams. It's a very fine distinction in some parts of this country, but it's a distinction that has to be made.

-- If there are 120 teams in "fbs", and it requires 12 teams for a conference to have a championship game, why not have 10 conferences -- 12 playoff spots (2 at-large bids) and make it work with bye weeks -- the NFL uses a 12 team playoff system, I have no idea what the RGFL uses, but that's another matter entirely.

So why does it have to be like this? At least with the old system, we all knew it was sloppy, and it was going to miss chances to name national champions (1994 Penn State Nittany Lions, ahem) but it never went out of its way to proclaim how right it is and how awesome and perfect it is that the games are like this.

Oh, and really don't ever listen to ESPN at all for anything regarding whether or not to have a BCS or any sort of bowl system -- Disney (owners of ESPN) has distribution rights to all but a few bowl games, and as such, stands to lose alot that time of year if anything were to change.

-- Knuttel

post script

-- I was just thinking about how one of the most classic, memorable, enduring moments of college basketball was Villanova's defeat of Patrick Ewing's Georgetown town in the mid-80s, despite being vastly out seeded etc etc; and how a scenario like that could never ever happen in College Football with the system as it is now.

-- Maybe because the field is so evenly qualified this year they should just revert to the older system and have these 5 or so major bowls and just vote on whichever one plays the best. Frankly it makes about just as much sense, and while it doesn't pit 1 against 2, it allows for all the unbeatens to have a shot at the title. Might actually be less chaotic.

-- Side note of additional information -- Cincinnati actually edged out Texas in the computer polls. Thought I'd share that.

-- Joe Paterno was "asked to give up" his voting privelages in the Coaches poll after he split his number 1 vote 3 ways during the season of 3 unbeatens. This was after the "national championship" game "decided" the winner. The bsc will stop at nothing for false legitimacy.

BS "championship" preview before the preview

If anyone is wondering, that stands for "bowl subdivision championship". I think it works better with the letters rearranged like so.

Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.

He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.

I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.

So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.

One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.

This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.

The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).

Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.

The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.

The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).

The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.

So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.

Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl

This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC

If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.

Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.

One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.

It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.

It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).

So how do we fix this?

Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.

Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.

The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?

Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.

If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?

If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.

Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.

I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.

-- Knuttel

oh, and some Danzig

Knuttel poetry break

So for some incredibly inexplicable reason I decided to pick poetry back up. I know, I know, poetry goes on the other blog, but whatevs, that one's obsolete, forever tied to an obsolete email address (my psu account).

I never really was a fan of editing poetry, so here's the night's first attempt.
working title -- wrapped and bound (it really, really is a working title)


Upon the streets
I walk
Into the darkness

Until we meet
I sulk
Inside this sweetness

And when the day comes, forever madness
Fates have been judged by all we haven’t done

The setting sun
It sinks
Into its ashes

The rising moon
Shall glow
Inside the hollow

The hollow of the hallowed night is right
It burns inside our empty chambers now

We cannot be filled
We cannot be filled

The heavy are slow
The full cannot move

-- Knuttel

and for some real amusement, space cowboy


soon should be a post on the current state of college football

Puck the System 2

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH PUCK THE SYSTEM
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH PUCK THE SYSTEM PUCK THE SYSTEM
I WANT TO PUCK THE SYS
I WANT TO PUCK THE SYS

Yeah, so looks like "Puck the System" is so far turning out to be not as regular as originally planned.

Whatevs.

Some Hockey news etc

only one team in the Atlantic division currently has a losing record. Not really worth mentioning who it is, because even if you don't follow hockey, it's easy to figure out. The Flyers are only in fourth because they have played the fewest games in the league, thus limiting chances to gain points from wins.

Ovie is hurt

Malkin was hurt as well for a few games, let's say five or so. During which, Crosby was held pointless. This either proves the Penguins have no depth so teams put everyone good up against Crosby and shut him out, or Crosby really needs Malkin to be effective or anything. Maybe it proves both. But Crysby sucks.

Ray Emery beat his former NHL team, the Senators (sorry, don't think there will be any NHL/KHL matchups pitting him against his closest former team) to cap off a five game Flyers win streak. It ended Saturday as their comeback attempt against the Sabres failed, 2-3.

In other news, two Flyers currently lead the league in +/-, Matt Carle and Chris Pronger.

And before I forget, to see how pens fans really view their team, I submit to you pictures they have edited for their players. I forewarn, they appear right out of 1999, but then again it is Pittsburgh we are talking about.

That is all for now

Now it's time for a rock show



-- Knuttel

The first ever Knuttel poll?

Back from Chicago, back from the dead, etc


So I was looking up more awesome Helmet videos, when I realized that there were two songs with the same title that were released very close to each other.

In The Meantime -- by Helmet, and Spacehog

I could do a breakdown, but that would probably show too much favor to one song, and let's keep this even, why not.

Helmet -- In the Meantime



Spacehog -- In the Meantime



comments section i guess, let's see if i can get participation from more than just 2 or so people, probably not, but it will be interesting

-- Knuttel

World Series wrap up

It was long, and well fought out, but in the end the Phillies could not prevail.

It's as simple as that.

But I can't turn my back on the team for coming this far and failing, at least not now.

Ever since Larry Bowa took over managing this team, they had focus on winning that just wasn't there before (and of course the fuck up he replaced ended up winning two world series with the red sox, funny what money can buy).

Ever since Charlie Manuel took over managing this team, they had a focus on playoffs that just wasn't there before. And in his second playoff berth he won a world series.

Entering this season, the Phillies were the reigning World Series champion, the reigning NL pennant winner, and for good measure -- back to back holders of the NL east title.

Exiting this season, they may not have the second World Series Championship, but they have back to back NL pennants and now have three NL east titles in a row.

Plain and simple, I can't criticize this team for losing in six to the Yankees.
Sure, the Phillies may be more efficient in their spending, but the Yankees just got more total.

It was a great year, but it just wasn't their year to win it.
-lineup had occassional problems with inconsistency
-bullpen was weak and no one seemed to want to be the closer
-starting pitching seems to be mostly youth and ancients, nothing much between.
-Ibanez had an awesome start to the year, a respectable finish, but he wasn't as amazing in the clutch as the player he replaced, Pat Burrel.

The core of Phillies that makes up this team is another year older (and they're already all around 30) but hopefully they are another year wiser. The pitching is young and promising.

Their days of winning world series may be over. This may have been their last opportunity for a while. But they should remain a good playoff team for a few more years.

-- Knuttel

World Series Preview, 2 games in

Well, the series is tied, so just consider it a new start


breakdown by positions

1B
Phillies - Ryan Howard -- Most powerful hitter in either lineup. His hits and rbis also come at very valuable times. He's slimmed down and gotten more fit, his defense is no longer in question

Yankees - Mark Texeira -- Power hitter, but not super powerful. Very good defensive first baseman.

advantage - Phillies

2B
Phillies - Chase Utley -- One of the strongest 2B's in all of MLB. Good defensively. Has a ridiculously good stealing percentage.

Yankees - Robinson Cano -- Good with the bat. Not a very good defensive 2B

advantage - Phillies

SS
Phillies - Jimmy Rollins -- Streaky hitter, but has good power for a leadoff hitter. Doesn't get on base consistently. Overall good defense and range. Can steal a base when he needs to.

Yankees - Derek Jeter -- Doesn't have the defensive range he once had. Defense was never really his strong suit. Reliable leadoff hitter and comes up with hits in clutch situations.

advantage - push

3B
Phillies - Pedro Feliz -- Good defensively. Came up with clutch hits in last year's world series. Hasn't done much this post-season.

Yankees - Alex Rodriguez -- Former short stop, so good defensively. Power hitter. Has 2 paintings of himself as a centaur hanging over his bed. Has had a strong post-season so far, after a history of poor post-seasons. (cheating -- has struck out like a demon in the world series so far)

advantage - yankees

Corner infield - advantage - yankees
Middle infield - advantage - phillies

Outfield
Phillies
Shane Victorino -- has been silent offensively most of the season, but may be the fastest baserunner on either side and has decent power too. Can take bad routes to the ball in the air, but has explosive speed and a cannon for an arm.
Raul Ibanez -- Started off season on fire at the plate. Cooled down, but still good with the bat. Better than he seems on defense, but still a likely candidate when looking for a DH.
Jayson Werth -- One of baseball's best kept secrets. Made his first all-star game this year. Powerful righty has made his way into the heart of the lineup. Solid on defense, strong arm.
Ben Francisco -- Ibanez's defensive replacement. Has picked up offensively since going to Phillies. Good right handed bat off the bench for replacement or pinch hitting.

Yankees
Melke Cabrera -- The lesser of the Cabreras. Decent bat. Mediocre defensive abilities for a center fielder.
Johnny Damon -- Former center fielder, so knows which route to take to the ball. Lost leadoff hitting spot to Jeter soon after joining the Yankees. Jeter was never a natural leadoff hitter. Lost a step or two in age. Has a weak throwing arm.
Nick Swisher -- Average defensive abilities for an outfielder. Doesn't have to cover much ground at Yankee Stadium. Not bad throwing arm. Decent hitter, except when it counts.
Jerry Hairston jr -- Is he really in the majors? Not very good defense. Mediocre offense.

Advantage -- Phillies, both CF and corner

Starting Pitching
Phillies
Cliff Lee -- Been Lights out entire post-season. I really dont see any flaws here. Only thing I count against him is he's pitching game one, at Yankee stadium, where he won't be able to take advantage of his hitting.
Pedro Martinez -- Pitches well in big situations better than anyone. Stuff isn't as fast as it once was, and he probably won't be able to throw as many pitches either.
Joe Blanton -- Most consistent pitcher for the Phillies all season. Also one of the few righty's that starts, oddly.
Cole Hamels -- Was lights out last post-season. a bit of an enigma this post season. had a dissappointing season by his standards.
JA Happ -- likely NL rookie of the year. Had a good year, but inexperience could catch up to him.

Yankees
CC Sabbathia -- needs to lose weight. seriously, the dude is huge. Can lose his head quickly, but has good stuff overall.
AJ Burnett -- Breaking ball pitcher. When his stuff breaks right, he's unhittable. When it doesn't it's batting practice.

advantage -- Phillies. to be honest i just don't know a ton about yankees pitching

Bullpen
Phillies -- good setup men, if Lidge can keep his head on, he's unhittable, has an ungodly slider that breaks more than most pitcher's curveballs.
Yankees -- shaky in the set up. If they can get to mariano rivera though, the game is over. He's virtually unhittable or unshakable.

advantage -- push


So there's my 2 games in preview of the world series.
yeah, i know i forgot Catcher, manager, and bench/dh, but to be honest, the penn state game is on, and i have to catch it.

-- Knuttel

now for some helmet

yeah, it's been like a month since i last got to post. guess i was busy or something...

in any case, not enough time to do it now, but tomorrow there will probably be a preview of the world series (which begins tonight, i know), but im not gonna let the game influence what i was gonna write about it.

and there will probably something about the shame and mockery that is pearl jam closing out the spectrum. more like getting a pearl necklace ... the one not made of actual pearls ... forget it.

piz

Puck the System volume 1: season preview

After a month long hiatus, the Knuttel returns, with a new installment titled "Puck the System". Why the hiatus? Well, Knuttel thought he was going to OCS today, but he got delayed until January, so posting should again be semi-regular, besides, it's not like shit happens in the summer anyway.


WAR. PUCK THE SYSTEM. WAR. PUCK THE SYSTEM PUCK THE SYSTEM.
I NEED TO PUCK THE SYS I NEED TO PUCK THE SYS

Despite Gary Bettman's best intentions, the NHL still remains an active league that regularly plays games and has a fair method of selecting its yearly champion (the president's trophy, obviously).

- The Flyers have decided to dump both of their goaltenders from last year (Biron and Nittymaki) despite usually good play from both. I suppose the hot and cold streaks were too much, so they just decided to save Emery from the KHL, whose hot and cold streaks are so severe, I'm actually looking forward to see if he'll stab anybody who scores on him (bonus points if its Crysby).

- The Flyers have also signed Chris Pronger ... to a ten year contract. Here's to looking forward to the Flyers having a legitimate first line defender locked up until the age of 50 -- whatevs, Chelios is still playing I think.

- Crysby still has not shaken the hands of the Detroit Red Wings after defeating them in the Stanley Cup finals. Look for him to be a marked man and the subject of many a dirty hit. Also look for him to flop on many times more a clean hit.

- Not even The Great One could save hockey (or establish it?) in the desert (I know, I expected more of Rich Tocchet too). Despite all of this, Gary Bettman is insisting on keeping the Coyotes in Pheonix. Common sense would say the team would fare better in its previous home of Winnipeg, or even Hamilton, Ontario, but this is also the league that thinks salary caps, and salary caps alone create parity (the NFL has nothing to do with salary caps, and theyre gonna be gone anyway, it's all revenue sharing and ginormous TV contracts).

- Direct TV subscribers were almost left without hockey for the year, in yet another move where someone actually called Gary Bettman's bluff, and he had shit. Sadly VS. and NBC cover hockey a million times better than ESPN ever did, or even how ESPN covers anything now. It's just the exposure. I mean, ESPN's lead hockey analyst's credentials are coaching Wayne Gretzky for a year or two in LA (and not winning a single game later on in Tampa Bay) and having a mullet.

- Crazy predictions time
-- Ovechkin will average more than one goal a game, and challenge for Gretzky's, if not Hull's, scoring record.
-- Someone else will come close.
-- Malkin will end the season with 50 more points than Crysby, but everyone will still insist Crysby is the better player. They will both still refuse to play defense.
-- PHEONIX WILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS
-- hah, no they won't
-- Chicago will not compete for a playoff spot at all after making a decent playoff run for the first time in like 15 years last season.
-- Tampa Bay will have 2 40 goal scorers, but they will not win 25 games.
-- The Toronto Maple Leafs will correct their grammar and go as the "Toronto Maple Leaves".
-- Shit, these predictions are too mild. whatevs. wait for the season to actually start.

-- I refuse to make any predictions or write about the Canucks, Oilers, and Flames, due to their proximity to where nickelback is from. If the teams were to take it upon their own hands to eliminate this band, physically, I'll reconsider.

-- Knuttel

The Fellating of "T"ed Kennedy's corpse. This is not about COMCAST

comcast comcast comcast comcast -- this post is NOT about COMCAST

thought I'd get that out of the way for now.


Anyways, what is up with the media's fellating of Edward "Ted" Kennedy's (or, as I like to call him, the cannibal of Chappiqua) corpse?

Even if it is by extension directed towards the whole Kennedy family, I still don't see it.

See, the Kennedys have never been more than an idea. Jack and Bobby were both shot before they could do anything significant. Ted never got his big things passed.

Jack was the first catholic president, and as a catholic, I admire that, but there haven't been any since, and only one has ran on one of the "winnable" tickets (2004, John Kerry).

Jack had the missile crisis, sure, but he also had the bay of pigs.

There was also the Civil Rights Act, which wasn't introduced until the end of his term, and not ultimately passed until Johnson became president, ultimately saddling him with the aftermath.

Bobby was Attorny General for 4 years, then NY Senator for about 3 (why New York instead of Massachussets, I have no idea) before he ran in the Democratic Primary, dieing before the ticket was officially formed. Again, the idea is there, and it is huge, but there wasn't anything ultimately to show for it.

Ted, unlike his two older brothers, had a long career in public service. Unfortunately the only thing he really has to show for it is Massachussets pork and the voting age act, passed very early in his Senate career. There's also a failed bid for the Democratic ticket in 1980, campaigning largely on the platform of public healthcare.

There's an unworking idea there. At least 29 solid years of campaigning for one single issue, and never gaining an inch.

Oh, and did I forget to mention Ted killed someone once?

So let me rephrase this again -- What is the big deal with the Kennedys?

-- Knuttel

OMG!! COMCAST CARES!!! 1

So, sometime after I posted my last entry, I received a comment from comcast, passive aggressively displaying displeasure in my negative things to say about comcast. The message is as follows.

"Go Phillies!

Sorry if we are causing you inconvenience by transferring analog channels to digital. We are simply making more room for more channels. For every analog channel, we can fit up to 12 digital channels or up to 3 HD channels.

You can pick up the DTA (analog to digital) converter at your local office. The first 2 are free. Let me know if you need help with this.

Regards,

Mark Casem
Comcast Corp.
National Customer Operations
We_Can_Help@cable.comcast.com

August 20, 2009 10:22 AM"

This was sent by a username of "comcast cares 1" which, of course, has no posts.

Frankly, this raises more questions/concerns than it answers.

1. Does comcast have employees who simply surf the web looking for negative press? I can count the readers of this blog with a closed fist, yet I get this comment.

2. The cable companies have 3 years from last May (est) to turn their non-local signals over to digital. Comcast is beginning this transition now. Digital tvs have only been on the market a very short period of time, and most house holds have more than 2 tvs. 2 free digital converter boxes mean nothing when those channels aren't necessarily guarunteed and they really just want to switch you over to having a cable box, with extended coverage.

3. Why do they assume I am a phillies fan? Assuming they have only read this post, I am merely a fan of good pitching and gm-ing.

4. Assuming they have read my other posts confirms any suspicions that comcast is indeed spying on me further. My proximity is not very far from comcast's headquarters, not to mention.

5. They do this just as verizon is finishing installing fios into the grid for our neighborhood. My guess is they're hoping to get some impatient slob who cant wait to see what happens on next week's "deadliest catch" or "ice road truckers" to invest somewhat of something into getting those boxes, or even upgraded cable, rather than even waiting for an alternative to at least call a bluff upon.

6. Fuck you comcast, I could be watching hardball. Instead I'm stuck with watching CNN fellate ted kennedy's dead corpse. That's not to say MSNBC wouldn't do that either, but at least they have hardball.

7. You know they're playing The Magnificent Seven on that classic movie channel? Yeah, I love that movie. Fuck you for taking it away from me.


I'd also like to point out that the person left behind zero useful information in clarifying any of this. He left a name, sure, but no telephone number, and no personal e-mail address. Actually probably a safe move, cos I'd find a way to spam the shit out of either or.

Oh, and the 3 HD channels per analog line or whatever? Yeah, that's bullshit. Your only supposed to run 2. 3 dillutes the quality, but I bet you didn't know that, and I bet they didn't tell you.

Death to Comcast
-- Knuttel

guffitall

so it's been a while since I last wrote, but whudevs. A few things that are/were on my mind.

Phillies -- good job not breaking the farm to get Cliff Lee. Last I checked, he just threw a complete game while getting two hits of his own. Roy Halladay, for whom the Blue Jays wanted the two prize jewels of the farm system (including possible NL rookie of the year J.A. Happ), gave up five runs in five innings.

Comcast -- Comcast has declared war upon me. They have the audacity to demand that the cable running into the house must also go through a digital cable box. While this may have the added bonus of giving unto us the N, home of Degrassi, this is evil and underhanded. Slowly they are taking away basic expanded cable channels, such as the history channel and food network. Worst of all, they are robbing me of Hardball. These people will pay for their sins, surely. But the thing is, cable in itself is already "digital". In fact, the digital versions of these channels come in on the hdtv we have. To resume getting these channels, we would have to get a cable box for each tv in the house, for which each would most likely be paid for separately. So, to summarize, in order to maintain the number of channels we get (and i assure you, we only get basic cable), we would have to pay more for a higher service. Methinks this is a blackmail of sorts.

Healthcare -- this issue is actually kinda huge, so I'm gonna leave it alone for here, and most likely post something more comprehensive in a day or two.

meh, good enough for now

-- Knuttel

immediacy

a slew of backlogged posts to be posted post-haste.

a variety of topics to be covered topically (as if by a cream or salve, indeed I do heal).

-- knuttel

Back to the Future

"It is as sure as you are Roderigo,
Were I the Moor, I would not be Iago.
In following him, I follow but myself;
Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,
But seeming so, for my peculiar end;
For when my outward action doth demonstrate
The native act and figure of my heart
In complement extern, 'tis not long after
But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve
For daws to peck at. I am not what I am."
Othello [I,i, 56-55]

So I was going through an old notebook the other day, and I came across a certain link to an old page on which I used to occasionally write (emphasis on occasionally).

http://users.livejournal.com/__knuttel__/

It's kind of bizarre looking into you past self like that. The grandiose vision is there, but there is a remarkable amount of naivite and generalization that I since believe myself to have shed. Some of the issues still connect to me. Others have since long been gone.

Most remarkable is now seeing this as some sort of meta-satire, now knowing what livejournal has since become (well, it was that too then I guess) given how devoted I actually was to it (not so much).

Equally low readerships plague both of these. The livejournal had about 5 readers maybe, all of which i could probably name, except this one hippie chick that used to facebook stalk me, forget her name. whatevs.

regardless, it's an interesting read, well the stuff that actually is content.

-- Knuttel

Lady GaGa "The Fame" : a review

"Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.
Her lips suck forth my soul: see where it flies.
Come, Helen, give me my soul again."
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus [V.2.191-199]

The glitz and glamor of every visual aspect of Lady GaGa is deliberately over the top, and for that very reason so very attention grabbing and stunning. But physical imagery does not a good album make.

So you get rid of that, and what do you have? Incredibly catchy pop songs with hooks that dig into you for days. But we've all known catchy pop songs that deliver nothing save empty sing-alongs.

So what happens when you get rid of that too?

You get one of the most well written and thought out albums of recent history.

She has said the album is about how anyone can be famous. Alas, that statement sells the album short. Really, it is a modern pop Faustian tale of selling ones soul and spiritual well being for untold amounts of fame and material well being. Frequently the lyrics cite the need to decide between whether to have love or fame -- specifically in the songs "Lovegame", "Beautiful Dirty Rich", and "Paparazzi", "Paparazzi" even going so far as to make it explicitly clear in the music video (really short movie) this point of not being able to have both (her "lover" sells her out to the papparazi who are hiding in the bushes around their house and he proceeds to push her over the edge of the deck to a nasty injury because she wouldn't cooperate and pose for the pictures while in their disingenuous love tangle).

Faust aside, the songs stand on their own and use very expressive and imaginative metaphors and verbal imagery. At first glance "Just Dance" is about dancing when you're drunk, but it suggests a much deeper struggle to hold onto that one fleeting moment of glory, even when it's since become impossible. "Poker Face" uses the imagery of gambling and bluffing to convey a standoff between two people who are possibly trying to proposition eachother but don't want to give anything away. "Lovegame" complicates this theme by adding a tinge of desparation.

Additionally, the album seems to take a sort of emblematic approach to this (our, GaGa included) generation, demanding entitlement to certain perks and privelages, not necessarily ready to deal with the responsibilities that go along with it. The rise and fall of American Youth never sounded so sweet.

And that's the other thing; musically, this album is very sound. Synths are nothing new, but they never seem over done. Alot of the songs use unorthodox structures, yet none of them really seem that odd or off, thus being subversively progressive and avant garde. Regrettably there is autotune on some of the songs, but it's confined to B-tracks that will likely not be released as singles, and seems to be done solely as an experiment. She doesn't really need it anyway, as several of the songs show off her vocal chops. In other words, where there is autotuning, it is deliberately to make that robot sound, not just some dude screaming into a mike and then changing it around afterwards to sound goofy.

All things said -- this is a fundamentally solid album by a talented songwriter with the hooks and imagery to take it really far. Here's hoping for a successful follow up.

A



-- Knuttel

Iran: Still the transformers of 2009 (a review of transformers 2)

"... frailty, thy name is woman!"
[Hamlet I.2.150]

Why, Mickey Bay, why?

Overall Grade: F-

In short, the movie was too long, boring, unoriginal and unexciting.

There was climactic music, yet no climax. There was dramatic (written) dialogue, yet no drama.

Looking at the last two sentences, if that could be done, and the movie is still watchable, congratulations, that may be art, but alas, Mickey Bay could not do it.

In the end, not even Megan Fox running in slow motion from explosions in a tight, low cut shirt could save this movie.

The movie was about 2.5 hours long, and yet it had no coherent plot or storyline. From what I gather, there were about 5 or 6 storylines, yet none of them actually seem to dovetail into each other. Any transitions are clearly covered up in the ploy of deus ex machina. Oh yeah, that's right; the 2 and a half hour Mickey Bay suckfest contained no actual climax.

How are these transformers going back and forth between earth and their home planet so quickly and easily? Especially since most of them don't fly. How are they hacking into satelites so easily? If they can just merge with other machines, why don't they? Or why do they only have two shapes to transform between? Are there 18 wheel trucks on cybertron?

Ok, getting past that -- What's up with the comic relief robots? I found them just annoying. During the course of a 2.5 hour movie, i didn't see fit the need to decipher everything that was shredded up to sound like a robot. How did the other robots get so much inflection in their voice boxes? It seemed like every robot that wasn't cracking wise was trying to deliver a monologue about a lost childhood or something.

And what was the deal with the decepticon college girl? Am I to believe they created her years ago so she could go to school and attend a prestigious east coast university? I also found it odd her relentless pursuit of Shia Labeouf. A girl that attractive would just move on, one would think, especially if he was just writing symbols the whole time.

I often imagine what it looks like when Mickey Bay tried writing it.

"OMG, it's Shia Labeouf, I remember you from "Even Stevens". Weren't you in Holes too? How about you penetrate some of my holes..."
"Umm no, sorry, I'm busy writing down all these symbols I don't understand to creep out my roommate, I'm also obsessing over Megan Fox, so yeah"
"Is this about your car throwing up on me? Cos I'm cool with that."
"Um no, I just don't like you at all, I want you to leave."
"Ok, I'll just rape you instead."
-- Little did Shia know that she was just a robot who looked like a hot girl, like that chick from Terminator 3: Rise of the machines. She should also have a hot robot tongue for when I try making out with her. Wait, you mean she's not actually a robot, just an actress? Fuck, this writing thing is hard. Note to self, hire someone else to write this movie, but try and keep this scene. Another note to self, delete this, but later, you have some explosions to edit.

Which brings me to the explosions. They looked way too planned and simultaneous for a warzone type atmosphere.

Why all of the slo mo? Why all of the spinning? Who is actually responsible for the cinemetography?

Are Shia Lebeouf's parents there for any reason at all? They seemed to have somewhat of a minor part in the first movie, but here they just seemed tagged on. Cameos would've been fine.

The one question that still surrounds me the most is : Why was this movie made?

-- Knuttel

Iran: Transformers of 2009 (more than meets the eye)

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"
[Hamlet, I.4.100]

Here are the facts as they exist thus far

1. The official results (as validated by Ayatollah Khomeni) show Mahmoud Ahmadinejad winning re-election with a popular vote total nearing 65%.
2. Ahmadinejad is the head of the more radical Iranian party.
3. The more moderate candidate, the one pretty much every western publication said would eke out a victory, only garnered about 35% of the popular vote.
4. The President has little to no power in the Iranian government. He is mostly just a figurehead, with some say in foreign policy.
5. Ayatollah Khomeni and his elite council run the country in a theocratic government.
6. An Ayatollah has ruled over Iran since the Shah was deposed in 1979 for being too friendly to American interests.
7. Iranian-American relations have always been complicated.
8. Political parties do not have control over their constituents, and certainly do not control those with similar goals who are not constituents.
9. Glenn Beck is a retard (please stop confusing your idiocy with one of the greatest pieces of revolutionary writing of the 18th century. Thomas Paine IS rolling in his grave).
10. Riots are occurring everywhere across Iran in protest of the Presidential results, especially in the capital and largest city -- Tehran.
11. Ayatollah Khomeni issued a proclamation calling Ahmadinejad the winner, end of story, all protesters will be dealt with violently, and the more moderate party is to blame for their actions.
12. Seriously Glenn Beck, just stop.

What to make of all this?

The Ayatollah still officially runs things, but is feeling like he is losing his grip on the people. As their political interests become more secular, a theocracy becomes less appealing. The president doesn't really do much in Iranian affairs, but having someone who is not Ahmadinejad in office would be a small victory for the Iranian people (think the government of Kerensky in 1917 Russia).

American intervention in this matter must be very delicate, if at all, due to the longstanding complications in relations between the two nations. If America shows too much support for the moderate candidate, he may be viewed as a western lackey. Iranians must find democracy for themselves, but they may need some help along the way.

The riots won't stop until the Ayatollah makes some sort of concessions (whether it be in power or politically, by having a recount or even re-election). The moderate party has little to actually do with the riots. Because the riots are so widespread and affecting many demographics, they do not currently run the risk of doing what the yippies did in the late '60s, who ended up alienating an entire country from anything politically associated with hippies. (Tried taking over 1968 Democratic national convention in Chicago, but were never invited. Instead they just decided to antagonize the police all across Chicago. Trying to show the nation how right they were through police brutality, they just looked like a bunch of dicks. Funny part is they got a candidate they wanted, and he still lost -- to Dick Nixon.)

Glen Beck is a force that needs to be stopped and cancelled.

This situation still has alot of settling to do before we know what the true Iranian situation is going to be.

-- Knuttel

The American Media is Misleading

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, loved abroad (in the Middle East), hated at home. For you see, Iran is made up largely of an urban and young population which does not agree with his views.

Wrong.

Maybe it's just media groupthink (I don't really expect in Iranian media to explore the "darker" parts of the cities, nor any of the countryside), but that is what every single media outlet (tv, print, etcetera) says of Iran.

Yet Mahmoud won 65% of the vote to become re-elected as President. While the results are already being disputed, he was still projected at a 50/50 dead heat with the closest competitor. Therefore, at best, half of the country agrees with him and thinks he would be a good President.

The fact of him being President is even made out to be more of a deal than it should be, as Iranian Presidents don't usually wield that much power. Usually the power is in the hands of the Ayatollah. But seriously, why can't at least the mighty and powerful American media paint a more accurate picture.

Tampering would have to be on a huge scale to make my point invalid. To put it in perspective, the Ukranian voting debacle of a few years ago had some pretty major-scale tampering, yet it only affected a few percentage points in favor of the government in power.

Maybe Iran has bizarro voting, and they say bad-bye as a greeting. I dunno.

-- Knuttel

Congratulations, Bud Selig; the Red Sox won

You got what you want. Don't pretend it's any different.

I saw the Greg Dobbs hit in the 10th/11th ish (really, it's all extra, so i don't know). You know the one that screamed down the right field line, at a height well over the foul pole, before careening to land slightly foul; the one that was deemed foul based on landing by the first base umpire, regardless of its flightpath; the one that the umpire then refused to review, not saying "it can't be reviewed" but rather "I'm not gonna review it"; yeah, I saw it.

I also saw the ever shrinking strike zone for pitcher Kyle Kendrick in the 12th inning. The Red Sox hadn't had a hit since the 8th, all of a sudden they get the bases loaded. The pitcher doesn't seem to have control issues, yet keeps throwing balls. Eventually readjusting to this new strike zone, Kendrick throws strikes, that get continually slammed into the outfield, scoring 3 runs.

And for that, I ask, why?

Maybe the hit was foul, but it was sooooo close, it had to have been reviewed. Was it because of extra innings? Was it because the umpire was being an asshole? Was it because Bud Selig had a bet against Pete Rose, stating the Red Sox would win? Wait, I forgot, betting is the one (and only) unforgivable sin in all of baseball (one of the greatest players of all time is held out of the Hall because he threw a game to earn a little more than the minumum wage that was payed to him), so let's rephrase that as a "friendly wager".

As for the strike zone in the 12th; consistency is really all pitchers are asking for. If the zone had been that small all game, I doubt regulation would have ended 2-2.


Oh, and in other news, the Penguins won the stanley cup. I didn't watch enough of the game to accurately determine if/how Bettman got Crosby to win, so I won't comment on that. However, it should be mentioned that he pretty much didn't shake the hands of any Red Wings fans, instead giving his own teammates and coaches high fives (good for you! thanks!!) and butt slaps/ass poundings until the Red Wings ceremoniously exited ice for the locker room. It should also be noted that Marian Hossa just can't seem to pick the right team (lost the finals with the Pens last year, lost with the Red Wings this year). He must be the anti-Claude Lemieux.

-- Knuttel

The greatness of Raul Ibanez

It has been a while since I last wrote about baseball, but baseball is once again upon us, therefore it must be written.

Raul Ibanez is awesome.

He has picked up where Brad Lidge seemed to drop between seasons (he'll get back though).

The game today is testament to his awesomeness.

He simply willed the 3 run homer in extra innings.

He chose not to hit the whole game until then, simply as a means to toy with the mets.

And for that, we won.



Also, honorable mention to Jayson Werth's several award winning catch from yesterday's many inning game to the mets.

-- By my count, he won the heisman, the vezina, the naismith, and should have entered the stadium today in the yellow jersey.

-- Knuttel

A second look at that Wolverine movie thing

Due to the subject matter of the movie being so pressing for the world of comic books, I have decided to take a second look at X-Men Origins: Wolverine (though it's probably more like x-men oranges:tangerine, amirite?), this time observing the final, completed project.

I feel I should explain how this viewing came to be. Well, it was Wednesday, and some friends and I were watching the UEFA Champions league game in Center City in a bar, and being drunk and suggestible, we decided it was a good idea to watch that wolverine movie, i think as a joke, but does it really matter at this point?

First things first

What was different from the leak to the finished product? If you recall, the leak came out a month ahead of the planned theater release, the special effects look unfinished all around, and they claimed they had to add a scene or two.

Well, the scenes that looked really unfinished (as in stand in computer graphics) were finished, but that was pretty much it. Aside from the final fight with "deadpool", there was little to none done to improve the special effects of the movie. In fact, I waited through the credits to see that final clip that was rumored (meh). The real joy from doing this was seeing how short the actual credits were. For a movie of that production value scale, it was extremely small in fact -- compare to waiting till the end of one of the Matrixes (probably reloaded) to see that clip, the credit list was monstrous. It's as if they simply plan on passing out x:men movies as quick as possible, knowing that they're a sellable commodity, even when they suck (see: X3).

Oh, and the "younger" Professor X looks like a clown. And, little nit picking note here, but didn't Prof X lose his ability to walk sometime in the 50's or 60's (not sure of the exact date/year, but Lucifer dropped a rock on his legs or something before he founded the X men). The bulk of the wolverine movie appears to take place in the 70's -- that's another thing, for something that needs to rely so strongly on convention and proven methods of writing workable "dramatic" matierial, the action is spread out over a veeerrrryyy long period of time, and that's not even counting the "throwaway" intro showing what Wolvie and Sabretooth did from the mid 1800's (before Canada, let alone the NW territories existed) until they got kicked out the the AMERICAN army during Vietnam.

The worst part may actually still be the deadpool treatment. It appears as if somehow during the course of that month when the movie was leaked and outrage stormed, one of the gaff boys or whatever was actually decided to pick up a (and i mean a, singular) deadpool comic and tried coaxing the director to throw some shit in there. The result was really only two things -- his face is scarred (though not that much, and not because of cancer) and at one point the area around his eyes was black, like his mask (except this was on his skin, as a reaction to shooting cyclops' optic blasts). I wouldn't be surprised to go back and look at the credits and see T-Ray as a producer.

I'm still puzzeled as to how they could have screwed it up that much. Really. The humor was there though, in a mystery science theater 3000 sort of way. Still no consolation.

The Starship has left earth

Jefferson Starship is the image of washed up and datedness.

I recently had the "pleasure" of seeing them play a free show at the AC boardwalk. Thank god it was free.

Only one member remains from when the band was called "Jefferson Airplane" and only one other is from the original Jefferson Starship days of the mid-70s. Grace Slick apparently retired sometime around the late 80s, early 90s; leaving arguably the most identifiable member of the group out (especially to those who are not hardcore followers). In her stead, a washed up blues singer has filled the space. Her claim to fame thus far is playing Janis Joplin in a musical biography of the singer. Writer's note: She was born in 1969, according to wikipedia, meaning she was hardly even conscious for all of this stuff. The lead guitarist looked like a 60 year old sonic the hedgehog, at least the haircut. He's only been with the band since the mid 90s. Same goes for the keyboardist (who also plays bass synth, replacing the awesome need of having an actual bassist on stage, for shame). The drummer has been with the band maybe a year or two.

Maybe the show wouldn't have been so bad if they weren't so insistant on playing new material, including a folk song about Barrack Obama (San Francisco Liberals haven't done any of those yet, have they?")

Did black cargo pants come back in style? Were they ever in style?

Is Jefferson Starship the soundtrack to the daily life of a casino security guard?

How many packs of cigarettes can the lone original member smoke within a set/show?

Has the old starship member ever gotten off his seemingly decade long acid trip?

If they're anarchists then why do they support Barrack Obama, not only one in favor of institutions, but of creating new ones and making existing ones larger?

Are people still oblivious to the fact that "White Rabbit" is about drugs?

Why did the chick singer keep playing "solo" stuff?

Why didn't they play "we built this city (on rock and roll)"?


Much like the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop (3), the world may never know the answers to these questions.

-- Knuttel

Bo, the new Checkers

About a month or so ago the President finally got his family that dog he promised them. Now that the news on this has died down, it is now time for me to throw my two cents in. Barry O was often quoted as stating before that he wanted a "hypo-allergenic" dog, and he wanted a dog from a shelter.

The only shelter this dog came from was one of the Kennedy Compounds.

That's right, Bo, the purebread Portuguese Water dog, was formerly a pet of Senator Ted Kennedy.

For those of you who have been living in a cave, Senator Ted Kennedy is an old and particularly powerful Democratic Senator from an old and particularly powerful political family (his cousin, Jack, maybe you've heard of him, he was President of the United States from 1961-1963).

So basically this dog is a political favor, a gift, expecting return.

It's very similar to a situation that occured 53 years ago, when Vice President Nixon was campaigning for he and President Eisenhower's second term. In addition to receiving a substantial amount of money from a prominent Texas political booster, Nixon received a puppy named Checkers.

So these situations are pretty darn similar. Prominent Executive office position holder receives puppy dog in exchange for what would appear to be a political favor. The kids loving the dog of course is always the reason that the dog cannot go. They've grown too attached.

So why is Obama receiving no crap at all for this, yet when this happened to Nixon, alot of prominent politicians (both sides of the aisle, if I remember correctly) called for Nixon's removal from the ticket. Eisenhower himself had to issue a speach saying something to the effect of "as for the dog, we've decided to keep him" -- referring of course to Nixon, and not Checkers.

So seriously. Try to have at least just a little bit of journalistic integrity on the matter. The not-from-a-shelter issue got moderately explored, but that was about it.

Is Obama really that much of a media darling?

I could start a rant here, but in possibly better judgement I am choosing against it.

-- Knuttel

Arlen Specter

Arlen Specter has always been a favorite politician of mine. Why? Because he holds fast to his own political beliefs, that's why. He acts in the best interest of his state and his country, not in the best interest of his party.

That's what makes him a great Senator.

And that's exactly why he had to switch parties.

The Republican party has essentially given up on the Northeast, and plans on giving up even further. Toomey was slated to run against Specter again in the primaries. He only narrowly lost last time, and already was predicted to have a 20 point lead for the election next year. Toomey is a far right republican, compared to Specter's moderate. So, if the Pennsylvania Republican party had its way, it would have rather run someone willing to tow the party line over someone who is willing to not make a mockery over the political process.

How bad is the Republican party trying to lose that its scaring away some of its most powerful politicians? Do they want to cling onto a narrow majority in a small, changing (yeah, it is), part of the country? Speaking of that change, yeah, that means they're gonna lose that part of the country too (North Carolina and Virginia, remind me who won them in the last presidential cycle).

Jesus Christ, just because Neo-conservativism was hi-jacked and distorted doesn't mean you have to resort to being the dixie party again.
Do they realize that liberatarian economic policies have large numbers of supporters in the Northeast (and other current democratic strongholds) in addition to parts they already have? Not to mention, the most charismatic leader of this part of the party is himself a Texan.

The democrats here don't actually win that much. Just another Senator titularly in their party (Specter actually switched parties originally very early in his career, to get the position of Philadelphia D.A.). Specter will still vote his own way.

I wonder what party and/or wing is going to replace the void that is quickly being created by the Republicans. Remember, it only took about 2 or 3 election cycles to make the Whigs a distant memory. And it was all because the Whigs refused to recognize the will of a changing nation.

The suck fest that is "X Men Origins: Wolverine"

Now, before I begin, I want to make it clear that Fox said it was OK to download this movie off the internet. Therefore, this review is not illegal.

I also want to mention, before I begin, that I will not comment at all on any of the special effects, or any bit of the movie where quality would in itself be depreciated by the lack of the finished special effects.

X Men Origins: Wolverine may be the worst comic book movie ever made, ever. This includes Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D starring Davind Hasselhoff, the practically unlicensed Fantastic Four from the mid 90s, Daredevil, Spiderman 3, and of course, X3 X Men United.

The reasons themselves are legion. The character of Wolverine was of the utmost importance to me as a child, so this offense is personal. It also gives me a certain kind of insight as to where abouts they went wrong. The characters of Deadpool and Gambit are also important to me, especially recently Deadpool. I also know very in depth the stories of Alpha Flight and Weapon X (also team x), which form the basis of any Wolverine origin story.

1. They never mention Alpha Flight by name, and it appears to be American in origin, as opposed to Canadian, despite having four Canadian members (Wolvie, Sabretooth, Deadpool, and John Wraith).
2. The X in weapon X is given as a number in a series of Weapons. This follows in the NEVER TO BE FOLLOWED Grant Morrison New X-Men story, which ties it to Captain America (Weapon I) etc. Would be nice, except this definitely does not seem like a tie into the Avengers Universe of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, making the point entirely moot.
3. Deadpool is gone within a matter of minutes.
4. Many members of Alpha Flight that shouldn't be in the group -- Bolt, Blob.
5. Deadpool doesn't have any powers at all in the beginning except being badass at martial arts. Also he has a distaste for using anything besides his swords, which is a lie because he will use anything at his disposal, including guns.
6. Sabretooths claws extend. WTF
7. Silver Fox is only loosely attached to weapon x, and has the power of persuasion. Oh, and she's related to Emma Frost (White Queen).
8.Blob is not extremely obese to start.
9. John Wraith teleports at will in public, in fact showboating it. In reality, he wants no one at all to know that he can teleport, even hides his powers from his teammates.
10. Really, I'm getting tired of naming every single innacuracy, and I kinda feel bad about nitpicking like this. Why don't I move straight to who is to blame. The list is long

1. Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox. Let this movie be made.
2. Marvel. Sold the rights to X Men pretty much entirely since X3. This is a Fox movie using Marvel characters, as opposed to being a Marvel movie produced by Fox.
3. Fox, they really screwed up the story of arguably one of the most followed Comic book characters of the past 25 years. Even people who did not follow comics followed Wolvie.
4. Grant Morrison. His New X Men storyline about Weapon X is the one predominantly used. It also happens to be the one that is never ever used in any other X Men continuity.
5. Ryan Reynolds. He played an adequately well enough Deadpool that they had to identify not only the character in the beginning as Wade Wilson, but the monstrosity at the end (see picture above) as Deadpool. We all know that is not Deadpool by any stretch.
6. Hugh Jackman. He's really digging this whole Wolvie gig, except he sucks at it. Kinda funny how the voice of Wolverine in the short lived show Pride of the X Men was Australian. Just a funny coincidence is all. He also thinks he's the current foremost expert on the character. It's a shame really, cos it seems he doesn't know a thing.
7. David Beinoff. He's the man who wrote this piece of garbage. Probably never picked up a comic book in his life (ahem Tim Burton's Batman ahem).
8. The World Series of Poker. Gambit's entrance is at an underground high stakes poker game. Not exactly where I'd picture him. Oh, they're probably also playing Texas Hold 'em, not the poker game I'd picture him playing. Oh, and there's cameos by some people who do that world series thing or whatever its called.
9. Gavin Hood. He directs this piece of crap.
10. Whoever thought it was a good idea to do what they did to Deadpool. Deadpool was part of Weapon X, he got the healing factor to cure his cancer, and then became crazy, the merc with the mouth. He did not receive about 20 different powers to become some sort of controllable monster that cannot speak.

Seriously, what they did to Deadpool was unforgivable. I am going to have to write an alternate movie solely for Deadpool. I'm thinking something along the lines of a Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back type of deal, maybe, except instead of dodging Will Ferrel, it's like Taskmaster or T-Ray or something.

And why does he never break the fourth wall? That can be very easily done. Just have him fuggin narrate the thing in real time, seen on screen. Really, not that hard.

How could they screw something like this up that badly? I feel like a part of my childhood has been cornered in a dark alley and raped repeatedly.

-- Knuttel

Space Buddies: Oedipus without the incest

Enough of these negative posts bashing various positions within the NFL and whatever else.

How about something positive.

Space Buddies may be the greatest straight to video release yet this year.

Both the Air Buddies and Air Bud series are direct to video now, but the Air Bud series is much easier to ridicule because of its ridiculousness. The original had a lot of pure dramatic elements. It wasn't a comedy or a children's movie per se, it was a feel good film, a story about redemption, a story that taught a kid to believe in himself. The dog just happened to be how it happened. As the kid learned more sports (presumptively) so did the dog, even when it seemed entirely impossible for the dog to do so.

The Air Buddies series, on the other hand, isn't grounded in that realistic original that prevents the movies from truly embracing the farcical. On the contrary. The very premise that the dogs can talk (as can the other animals) opens up the entire world to put these puppies on fantastic adventures that seem to be able to work within its own world.

The movie does have some of the problems of standard kid fare. The ending is horribly predictable, there are some pretty big plotholes, there are some fairly large inconsistencies (in the matter of physics and the like, things not needing to be explained); but it still works.

Really, the film has some of the best dramatic irony since Sophocles' classic Oedipus Rex, the standard of the definition. No one but the audience knows who is on board the shuttle until they reach the moon. No one but the audience knows who the villian is until the end. No one but the audience knows how the shuttle manages to make certain corrections until the end.

-- And it's things like that which make the film legitamately good on its own merits. Sure the ending is incredibly standard, but I wanted to see how they'd get there, and how certain things would unfold. The journey was the destination itself.

The characters could be a little more dynamic, and maybe the plot a little more twisted, but hey, it's a kids movie. It is meant to entertain.

It entertains.

-- Knuttel

More About the "Brady Rule"

It came upon me not too long ago that this rule is more specifically tailored to Brady than perhaps it should be.

The one thing that seemed to bother him and his offense was the blitz (on either the rare occasion they didn't know the play before hand, or they decided to let it go).

Yeah, that's right. Pressure, getting a hand in his face, that is what stopped him the most.

While pressure seemingly affects all quarterbacks, Brady seems to stick out like a thorn in its affect. Some quarterbacks are simply not affected, while there are a rare few others (a B.R. from Pittsburgh) that seem to actually have better stats while being hit or on the run.

Oh, and that play where he got hurt, it was a blitzing safety who hit him.

Just throwing that out there.

The Tom Brady-fication of the league needs to stop.

The NFL Competition Committee Votes Against Playing Football

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/03/24/brady_rule_steps_taken_to_protect_qbs_knees/

After its meetings this week, the NFL has decided to put up a charade that football is being played, rather than fold entirely.

Yes, the NFL has decided that defenders who are rushing the passer need not exert any effort once blocked. Yes, tackling the quarterback is now illegal if in fact you are being blocked.

The league has decided that yes, in fact one player is not only greater than the team, but greater than the entire league.

No, we must never, ever be forced to suffer through another Tom Brady-less season. Because football without him is hell.

And God forbid they have to find a replacement. I mean, when Trent Green went down in 1999, the Rams only barely won the Super Bowl.

And when Drew Bledsoe went down in 2001, the Patriots had to use the second quarterback on their depth chart to win the AFC championship game. I hear they even had to steal signals to beat those Steelers.

And when...

OK, seriously, there is no actual discernible football reason for this rule to be made. It stifles defenses, and teams should never ever be reliant upon one quarterback. So why protect him so much more than the other players. Last time I checked, the Patriots still had a winning season (though could not win a weak division) and Brady's replacement was Franchised (giving him an 11 or so million dollar salary) before being traded to another team to be the cornerstone of their offense.

Just stop. OK. Just stop, Roger Goodel. You, sir, are killing a national sport. Something that was once revered is now but a laughing stock (as you plan on going international, no less).

-- Knuttel

The NFL Competition Committee Convenes

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=packhowonemanwouldchange&prov=tsn&type=lgns

So the NFL Competition Committee is currently meeting in Los Angeles (Go Rams?) to discuss possible rule changes. Undoubtedly they have been vigorously reading this blog and are thus ready to cave into my demands.

The man who's article is linked directly above stands opposing to this superior mind of thinking. No wedge on kickoffs? A) how are you going to enforce that? B) how are kickoff teams going to block? C) Is the NFL going to pay for their players' tampons?

The Houchuli incident does need fixing, but officiating isn't something I am looking to involve myself in as of the moment. Maybe tomorrow.

The situation with roughing the passer has not, and does not look like it is going to be addressed. Defenses need to be able to play competitively, and not look around constantly to see if there's a striped fool ready to throw a flag at a moment's notice. Last time I checked, Quarterbacks also wear football pads, often times covering more than other players.

The situation with numbers also looks like it is not going to be addressed. Sadly the only exceptions to this rule seem to remain wide receivers who are mainly return specialists. When will justice be paid, so any non-offensive lineman can be declared an eligible receiver (if properly aligned, of course) without having to report to the referee first. Its bull shit. Numbers 1-19, among the most prized for High School and College Students (for all positions) are limited to Quarterbacks, Kickers, and Punters. Wide Receivers occasionally can done 10-19. That's still far too narrow. Too many players are simply football players first, position second (Anquan Boldin comes to mind, imagine what they can do with him if they don't have to lock him so obviously to one dimension).

Really, it looks like the NFL is busying itself to fix non-existent problems. Which is sad.

There are two things that the NFL can fix, that they should. Sadly it only looks like one will be used.

1) Get rid of blind blocks downfield.

Sometimes this is referred to as a crack block. This rule might actually get enforced. It is the rule that allowed a wide receiver (Hines Ward) to break the jaw of a linebacker on the Bengals. Yeah, the jaw. Football players wear facemasks. Their jaw should largely not be at risk. A player needs to be able to defend himself against anything coming at him. It's the very reason punt returners can fair catch the ball.

2) Get rid of helmet to helmet hits.

This, sadly, is not going to happen. And the culprit for this, ESPN. In it's attempt to find something highlight worthy for the defense, it turned to the pick and the huge hit. Interceptions happen, but not with enough frequency to consistently make highlights, quarterbacks are throwing fewer and fewer, and alot of them are simply unreturnable, which is where the highlight really is. So what they have left is the big hit. Since most viewers don't know what to look for in a big hit, they listen. The pop, that loud crunching noise of plastic hitting plastic. That is what they look for. 9 times out of 10, that is the result of the tackler's helmet smashing into the other players helmet or straight into the shoulder pads. Safety's seem to be the biggest culprit, though it is increasingly happenning with linebackers, who getting smaller and faster, don't get as much practice with form tackling, and resort to trying to make highlights (think of the speedy contact hitter trying to swing for the fences to try and prove he can drive the ball long).

It's a big mess, and they need to clean that up, especially since they already supposedly have rules about this. Fines after the game do nothing, since most players will do anything, dirty and clean, to try and win the game in that moment. Making the hit actually illegal on the field, and doing something about it on the actual field, will significantly reduce helmet to helmet hits. The league doesn't need any more Dirty Waterses committing suicide, or Ted Johnsons being forced to play and practice through unnecessary concussions.

They have a long ways to go.

-- Knuttel

Season 8, what hath become of you? (update)

Season 8 (Degrassi), from the start, was going to be an interesting experience. None of the students attending the school in season 1 attend the school anymore. Spinner still hangs around, even though he graduated, and Snake still teaches there. Emma, Manny, and Liberty are all out on their college experience.

But something grave has happened.

The man has found Degrassi.

It may have popped up as an anomaly where The Principal or the Cops or some other force has been the ultimate and true law, overruling everything about kid law. Season 8 thus far has been an exception. While the Principal himself as giver of the law may have been subverted to a certain extent (though after his totalitarian management of the football team), the kids have all been subject to laws outside of their own realm.

This has become really strong as of late. It began with "Heat of the Moment." The main plotline deals with a little sort of squabble that ends up online, where Alli makes a fool of Holly J to the extent that she doesn't want to come into school. This in and of itself would not be so bad, except, inexplicably, Acting Principal Snake Simpson and the Toronto Police Department both found out about this, giving her a school suspension, a juvenile criminal record, and at least a months worth of punishment from the parents.

It is a serious issue, for sure, but by some deus ex machina, Alli managed to get the worst punishment she could really get for this, and it all came seemingly from the outside. Not even Holly J was the one pressing charges. When Degrassi last dealt with bullying in general (not on the interwebs) the student himself eventually took matters into his own hands and shot the dude. Now, I'm not advocating School shootings by any stretch of the imagination, but this is a drastic shift in tone for the show. Before the adults were callous, uncaring, disinterested, and never out for the best interests. Now all of a sudden, they are watching, they will act when something is done wrong, and they claim (indisputably) that they are the best interest. When did Degrassi turn into Narc High?

3 episodes later, Narc-ville returns, in "Touch of Grey," which has only so far aired in Canada (thank you interwebs). In this episode, the main plotline deals with Emma's struggle to find an identity at college, in the process her nickname changes from "Blonde Emma" (even though at this point she is a brunette) to "Blaze." Yeah, this episode deals with pot, and what I assume to be outdated slang (I'm giving the kids younger than me some credit, surely they must use at least slightly different terminology). In this episode, a new friend of Emma's enters into a diabetic coma, and I am not making this up, because she forgets that she has diabetes after getting high off a few pot brownies. The RA's immediately know the culprit was pot brownies, because the method of choice for getting high by diabetics is naturally to consume pot with an extremely sugary baked confection. Campus police eventually catch up to "Blaze"'s roommate/boyfriend, who is trying to ditch her stash, because she didn't think of doing it herself earlier.

Compare this wth the way pot was dealt with during season 7 (before hand it was simply alluded to). Two instances specifically come up, one in "Love is Like a Battlefield" the other in the aptly titled "Pass the Ductchie." Both of these have very real circumstances, none of which are too heavyhanded. Both of which are ambiguous. In the first, Alex smokes up with Jay as a way to cheer him up after he gets dumped. Their friendship goes way back, and Jay had been alluded to as a smoker previously. This costs Alex her ability to help out her girlfriend, Paige, with her newfound job, and thus eventually costs her the relationship. In the latter, Spinner is dealing with chemotherapy and is having difficulty holding things down. Jay suggests to him that marijuana may help him with this (naturally Jay knows of its anti-emitic properties). It helps Spinner hold both his medicine and his food down, and everything is fine and dandy, until he loses focus in school (a recurring problem with him, mind you) and has some minor fights with his girlfriend, mainly about hanging out too much with his ex. He decides to stop, deal with the constant vomiting of chemo, and focus on school. What a trooper.

Both of these instances dealt with the actual effects of marijuana on the user, and not the possession of said substance. In addition, neither of those instances paints a black and white picture of marijuana use, and have arguably deleterious effects if they had chosen not to partake. If Alex hadn't smoked up with Jay, it would have soured that moment in their friendship, Alex disavailing herself while Jay needs her the most. If Spinner hadn't smoked up, he would have been throwing up even more. It gave him a few days of holding everything down, and he eventually learns on his own that he'd rather go without it. Jay isn't even painted as a stereotypical pothead. Thuggish, sure, pothead, nah, not really. Compared to Kelly's friend, total pothead (even down to recreational frisbee).

So why shift gears like this? It seems in the Degrassi universe, no longer is it the consequences of your own actions on your friends which affects you. No, it is the consequences from outside authority figures on seeing your actions that affects you.

Is Canada entering into some sort of Police State I am unaware of?

-- Knuttel

The intermediary episode (a two parter, "Jane Says") actually dealt with an important issue, the first time in a while they've dealt with such a serious issue. Sadly the secondary plots in both just seemed annoying. 1) don't lie to the popular kids because they are petty, and have poor taste in tv and music; 2) Claire starts attracting male attention away from Alli. Way to counterbalance child molestation. Yeah, and they definitely did scale back on the issue itself in both of them, old degrassi would have been much more intense.

And while I'm at it, what is the deal with all of the retconning?

Edit: An episode in Season 5 deals with pot, "Death of a Disco Dancer" I believe is what it was called. Paige gets a joint from her former Teacher/boyfriend now exile Matt O upon the official ending of their relationship. After stupidly flailing it about the front steps of the school, Paige and Alex settle on smoking up before the College/Career fair visits. Paige eventually has to interview with the representative from Banting (like the Ivy equivalent) who is also a family friend. She freaks out, her mom finds out she smoked, an she gets grounded or whatever. But again, here it is not the possession of Marijuana which caused the problem, and it's not the all seeing eye which incurred wrath. Again too, the situation surrounding the consumption is rather ambiguous. While Palex is certainly not making out, it is certainly in its beginning stages, and doing this helped to strengthen the budding friendship/romance.

Later in the season, there was another drug related matter. Not only did it deal with a much "harder" drug (percs), but the kid (JT) was straight up dealing them. Again, all of his consequences came from his peers (including his pregnant girlfriend) discovering his dealing and his eventual consumption (and overdose) on the drug itself. It was an ultimate lesson in responsibility, not a childish lesson in -- hey, why do you have that, you're not supposed to have that, I'm telling, you're gonna get in soo much trouble.

After all of these years, does Degrassi have to grow up?