From left to right: Don Draper of Mad Men, Tony Soprano of The Sopranos, Tommy Gavin of Resuce Me and Jimmy McNulty of The Wire

Back in college the magazine I worked for did a tournament to determine who the manliest man in history was. Contestants included Bruce Lee, Genghis Khan, Mickey Spillane and George Patton. What made a man “manlier” than other is how he fared in three categories: drinking, whoring and fighting. I have decided to extend this format to four of the preeminent male characters on television today: Don Draper from Mad Men, Tony Soprano from the Sopranos, Jimmy McNulty from The Wire and Tommy Gavin from Rescue Me. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a man-off.

Drinking: The first category in this contest is drinking. Contestants will be judged not only on sheer volume, but also on how well they hold their liquor. Contestants will also be judged on the quality of liquor they drink, and how often liquor affects the next two categories: fighting and whoring.

Tony Soprano: While not a full fledged alcoholic like everyone else in this contest, Tony scores points for his ability to make sipping whiskey out of a shot glass manly. His sheer bulk makes the tiny glass look like a thimble in his hand. Tony also scores points for his frequent drinks at the Badda Bing. Not only do we get gratuitous nudity because it’s a strip club, but we get to see Steve Van Zandt is that ridiculous wig.

Don Draper: Like Tony Soprano, I don’t think Don Draper would consider himself an alcoholic, but in a recent episode a doctor asked him how many drinks he had in a day and Don said five. Five drinks a day makes you an alcoholic. Don scores points because he always looks classy drinking everything from an old-fashioned to a plain old beer. Don also excels at drinking because he can give one of his classic “why people need this” speeches after a three martini lunch. Draper has an advantage for the sheer fact that he has a bar in his office.

Tommy Gavin: Tommy is at a disadvantage because he’s been on the wagon since season one. However, in the span of those 13 episodes, Tommy could be seen drinking glasses full of vodka, vodka straight from the bottle and vodka straight out of a distillery. Tommy drank at work, at home and even while having sex with his dead cousin’s wife. One advantage the writer’s of the show have with Tommy being sober is they can always flash to Tommy beginning to drink again while everyone watching yells “no, Tommy, don’t do it.” Only to reveal that it was a daydream or some other projection of Tommy’s mind.

Jimmy McNulty: Jimmy holds a special place in my heart for two reasons: first, he drinks Jameson’s. Second, whenever he is drinking Bunk Moreland is usually with him, and that guy is hilarious. However, unlike everyone else on this list, Jimmy is a public menace when he drinks. He’s a cop, so he always has a gun on him. He frequently drives. One time he crashed his car while driving drunk, and then he crashed it again just for funsies. And, Jimmy has no problem showing up at your door at 2 in the morning completely belligerent and begging for sex. Oh, and the whole time he’s doing this, he’ll either talk about his ex-wife or his man crush, Stringer Bell.

Winner: Don Draper

Draper wins for his sheer functionality. He also wins because every time I watch that show it makes me want to drink. He makes it look so classy, elegant and socially acceptable to have a blood alcohol level constantly above 0.1. In all honesty, the only way you can be ostracized for drinking on that show is if you piss yourself before a big meeting. If Freddy had done that any other day, he’d still have his job.

Fighting: This category will be scored on not only on fighting aptitude, but for frequency and with whom they chose to fight. Murdering does not count as fighting nor does using things like baseball bats and Billy clubs.

Tony Soprano: Tony is at a disadvantage because I ruled out murdering. While Tony did not fight with people that frequently, when he did he usually won, and it was usually hilarious. In the very first episode, Tony hits a guy with his car, and as the guy is on the ground crying because he can see the bone sticking out of his leg, Tony begins to kick and stomp on the exposed bone. Tony loses points for picking a fight with the most non-threatening mobster in the history of mobster-dom Bobby Baccala.

Don Draper: Don Draper loses huge points in this category. I think the big secret of Mad Men is that deep down Don Draper is a giant pussy. While he has not been presented with many situations to actually throw down, he did punch that comic in the face after he told Don’s wife that Don was having an affair with the comic’s wife. But the whole “assuming a different identity so I don’t have to face my problems” severely detracts from Don’s manliness. Plus, the way he treated his brother gets a big thumbs down.

Tommy Gavin: Tommy will throw down with anyone, his brother, his cousin, cops, priests, his ex-wife’s boyfriends, his cousin’s ghost, lesbians, gays and Uncle Teddy. I think the only people on the show Tommy hasn’t punched/slapped/kicked in the face is his kids. While in the real world Tommy would have been locked away long ago for a whole range of aggravated assaults, the people he punches in the face always deserve it. All of this is made doubly hilarious by the simple fact that Denis Leary is one of the skinniest men alive and the idea that he could dominate so many people so thoroughly is laughable.

Jimmy McNulty: Like Tony Soprano and Don Draper, McNulty doesn’t get that many opportunities to fight. Usually, because he is too drunk to care. In one episode, Jimmy (remember he’s a cop) comes across three guys who are trying to break into a car. He tries to make them stop, but all that comes out is slurred gibberish. He then proceeds to slip, fall and roll down a hill. The bad guys run away, but I am certain they were laughing.

Winner: Tommy Gavin

Tommy wins for quantity not quality. While the other three guys in the competition all fare well in a fight, Tommy is the only one who goes looking for them. Tommy also has the advantage of having the literal job of “fighting” fires. I think Tommy would also win the metaphorical battle of fighting personal demons because the other three suffer from existential impotence (I debated making that a category, but then I remembered no one cares when I use phrases like that).

Whoring: Like before, both quality and quantity count. This will probably be the hardest category because all four of these guys do insane amounts of whoring.

Tony Soprano: Tony Soprano is a special beast for this simple reason: While he is married, he always has a mistress on the side, and he will randomly fornicate with anything that comes his way. He doesn’t just cheat on his wife; he cheats on his mistress. Tony Soprano participates in non-linear infidelity. The only problem with the women Tony chooses to bone is that they are all bat-shit crazy. The Russian, the Mercedes dealer, Julianna Margulies, they’re all out of their minds.

Don Draper: In the two seasons that Mad Men has been on, Don Draper has run through one of the most impressive string of women in the history of television. Like Tony Soprano, he has a beautiful wife at home, but he’s constantly going after these strong, independent types. The artist, the department store owner, the comic’s wife, all of these women are the complete opposite of his wife at home. What would put Don over the top is if he would sleep with the saucy redhead in the office, or the secretary that’s now getting married to Roger.

Tommy Gavin: Every woman Tommy Gavin sleeps with is gorgeous, and, like Tony Soprano, they’re out-of-their-mind crazy. Tommy loses points because he insists that he still wants to be with his wife when he has the likes of Marissa Tomei and Jennifer Esposito throwing themselves at him. And then there was the whole Ms. Turbody ordeal when he stole his nephew’s fuck buddy who was also said nephew’s science teacher.

Jimmy McNulty: Jimmy McNulty is a victim of his show’s commitment to reality. Yes, he has lots and lots of sex. But because the creators want their show to be realistic the women aren’t on the same level as the other shows. With that being said McNulty gets points for sheer ingenuity. The best McNulty moment is when he has to go undercover to break up a brothel and ends up in a threesome before the cops can arrest everybody. Then the cops break into the room where the threesome is happening, Jimmy smiles at them, and they let him finish. Best. Episode. Ever.

Winner: Too close to call

All three of these guys really deserve the crown for different reasons. I guess if I was forced to narrow it down to two it would be between Draper and Gavin. Draper because his women are classy and elegant, and Gavin because his women are hot. Yeah, that probably makes me shallow, but I don’t really care.

What on earth will this accomplish?

Let’s pretend I ran a football team, and the team I was running was having some trouble. Well, the whole team isn’t having trouble. It’s more like one player is causing the trouble. He’s selfish, makes ridiculous statements to the media and is not a “team player.” Because of this one player, the rest of the team is constantly forced to say and do the right things in order to make up for this one guy. An unspoken level of stress and animosity builds up throughout the team because they can’t understand why this one player who does everything wrong off the field gets all the attention.

Now, if you had to guess what position that guy played what would you say? Wide receiver, right? (Or, Terrell Owens to be specific because that’s who I was thinking about as I wrote the previous paragraph.) A lot has been written about T.O. and why he acts the way he does. But I don’t think I have ever seen an article about what it is about receivers that make them act that way. People like T.O., Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, Kellen Winslow and Jeremy Shockey are just a few in the long line of receivers who are outspoken, talented when they want to be and quite frankly, really annoying. (I know the last two are tight ends, but they are receiving tight ends so save your comment corrections.)

The first thing that needs to be looked at is the nature of the position. Wide receivers are reliant on someone else getting them the ball. While running backs have plays called specifically for them, and linemen are smart enough to realize their importance on the field, a receiver needs the quarterback to throw him the ball. Sure, you can design a passing play for a receiver; in fact, most passing plays have a primary receiver, a secondary receiver and so on. But, every time the quarterback drops back he has anywhere from two to five choices where he is going with the ball.

Look at it this way, if a receiver has a big day he usually has between seven to ten receptions. On the same day, a running back will have 20 attempts and the quarterback will throw the ball 25 times. In terms of pure touches, a receiver’s contribution to a game can easily be minimized.

Have you ever been watching a football game and the stats will flash up and the leading receiver for team X has 7 catches for 94 yards, and someone will invariably say, “Holy shit, when did that happen?” I just described Hines Ward’s career. Unless you are a big play guy, your contributions get lost except when you have been consistently good for years like the aforementioned Ward and Marvin Harrison. Then “football guys” like John Madden and Ron Jaworski, ceaselessly praise you for “doing the right things.”

Which brings me to my next point, receivers, by design, make big plays. Whether it’s a 65-yard bomb or an eight yard stop route that turns into a 53-yard touchdown, wide receiver is a glamour position. Let’s say in the same game a running back rushes 26 times for 103 yards with two touchdowns and no run over 8 yards. In the same game, one of his receivers has four catches for 126 yards and two touchdowns. One touchdown was a deep ball and the other was a short route he broke. Whose highlights do you think we’ll see? I understand it’s not the receiver’s fault that his highlights make for better television, but this is the paradox receivers operate under.

Receivers, by the simple design of the game of football, are constantly fighting for more touches while getting deserved praise for limited receptions. A receiver thinks to himself, look how well the team is doing when I average six receptions, imagine if I averaged ten. He then makes an innocuous statement to a reporter like, “I should get more receptions,” and suddenly he’s selfish and only cares about himself.

Yeah, I take plays off. I play for the Raiders. Fuck you.

This is usually when receivers go two directions. They jump on the crazy train like Terrell Owens, or they “take plays off” like Randy Moss. In both cases, it is a ploy to get more receptions. Terrell Owens does sit ups in his driveway to say, “Look, I’m crazy. Maybe if you threw me the ball more I’d stop acting this way.” And Randy Moss takes plays off because “Look how good we do when I try, but now that I am unappreciated I am going to suck to show you all how valuable I am. Because when I suck, you suck”

Again, this kind of thinking allows itself to fester and grow simply by the design of the game. Wide receivers are lined up away from everyone else. They are isolated by the formation. Receivers are literally and metaphorically on an island. They aren’t like linemen who need the guys next to them to be successful, or running backs who need the line to be successful, or quarterbacks who need everyone to be successful. They just need the ball. So the Terrell Owens brand of receiver will act out, act crazy for attention. “Look at me, I’m out here all alone doing sit-ups in my driveway, throw me the ball.” While the Randy Moss brand of receiver will take plays off. “Look at me out here all alone. No matter what I do, he still might not throw it to me. Fuck him.”

The final point I will make about why receivers act the way they do has to do with contact. The perception of any wide receiver within the team dynamic is that they are soft. Lineman clobber each other all practice, running backs get clobbered all practice and receivers catch balls all practice. Whether this characterization is right or not doesn’t matter. The fact that it does exist further marginalizes the success of a receiver. Imagine this conversation between Terrell Owens and Flozell Adams

Owens: Flo, I had 8 catches today for 130 yards and three touchdowns. Want to go get a drink to celebrate?

Adams: I just spent three hours fighting with Dwight Freeney. I’m tired, and I am going home to bed. So fuck you, and you drink.

This is why receivers are crazy.

Once upon a time there was a Greek philosopher who took a bunch of mushrooms and wandered into a cave. He must have started a fire, and in the midst of making shadow puppets on the wall and mumbling to himself he was hit by an hallucinatory bolt of lightning. He realized that he controlled everything that he could see projected on the wall. His mind then jumped to a conclusion that could only be made possible by the presence of hallucinogens—what if everything we see is someone else’s shadow puppets.

When Plato came down, he formulated his Allegory of the Cave. He “philosophized” that most humans are unenlightened because they are content to simply name the shapes and shadows that others are projecting into their reality. However, the enlightened human will eventually turn around, see the “projectionist” behind them and walk outside.

Plato makes the argument that we live in a subjective reality. He believes that everything we see, feel and hear is subject to unenlightened interpretation. A song cannot simply be a song because when we bring our own personality and insights to it, it becomes something else. For example, the song “Piano Man” by Billy Joel has a lot of sentimental value to me. It reminds me of all the times my friends and I would play poker in my grandmother’s basement in high school. However, someone else could listen to that song and think it sucks (those people are bags of douche). In this case, “Piano Man” would be one of Plato’s shadows on the wall of the cave. Someone else has introduced it into my life, but because I am unenlightened, I reinterpret what I hear to make it applicable to my life.

Plato goes on to say that once you realize that your reality is subjective, you become “enlightened” and begin to explore the objective nature of reality. If the enlightened person no longer accepts his interpretation of what he sees, then there must be some greater purpose. An enlightened person would no longer see “Piano Man” as a sentimental song that reminds them of high school, they would instead explore the “nature” of song and how to objectively define it.

I believe there is no such thing as an objective reality. To prove this, I will counter Plato’s Allegory of the Cave with my own Allegory of Baseball.

Reality has rules. Everything dies, energy cannot be created or destroyed and an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. And while the “rules” may seem like an objective reality pushing into a subjective world, they actually only exist because we discovered them. Physics and math is just a more complicated way of naming shadows on a wall.

Baseball also has rules (God, does it have rules). Three strikes to an out, six outs to an inning and nine innings to a game (unless there is a tie after nine innings–my first corollary). However, within this clearly defined system there is almost infinite room for interpretation.

I’m going to start with the most basic unit of a baseball game—the strike. Without the strike, the game would be an endless series of batters swinging until they got a hit or they collapsed from exhaustion. The strike is the catalyst that makes the game go. However, what constitutes a strike can vary not only by which umpire is behind the plate, but also how he is feeling that particular day or even inning. Imagine you went on Jeopardy and getting the question right depended not only on your own knowledge but whether or not Alex felt like saying you got the answer right. This is what pitchers and batters deal with everyday. A strike is supposed to be a pitch around mid-torso to the knees, and anywhere over the plate. But as we all know from watching a game, this is never the case. At its very core, the “reality” of baseball is subject to human interpretation (See: subjective).

God? Or force of nature?

If you want to take the allegory even further imagine the pitcher as God, nature or whatever ruling force of the universe you subscribe to. I am going to use God because the actions of a pitcher are willful and not seemingly random like acts of nature. So the pitcher’s whole job is to strike you out. His job is to make you look stupid. In my subjective reality, God is a pitcher who’s trying to ruin your day. Sometimes he throws a K-Rod slider that dives across the plate and makes you look silly, and sometimes he throws a fat, hanging curve that you hit out of the park. The good news is that there is a method to the madness. The bad news is sometimes you strike out, and God laughs. Oh, does he laugh.

However, like I said earlier, reality is subjective so God isn’t always Sandy Koufax. He may seem that way, but other times he’s an annoying Greg Maddux needling away at the corners, or a Jose Mesa who begs you to hit a homerun off of him. Some days you swing the bat like Hank Aaron and others you look like a terrified A.L. pitcher during interleague play.

The point of all of this is that there are no “absolutes” in the philosophical use of the term. Science has absolutes, math has absolutes, even music has absolutes, but those absolutes only exist because we discovered them. And before you jump all over me for contradicting myself let me point to this: A home run to left-center at Dodger Stadium is 375 feet. At Minute Maid Park in Houston, a home run to left center is 362 feet. The ball stays the same, the swing stays the same, even the batter and pitcher can stay the same, but in one park you’ll get a home run and the other you won’t. The parameters of the park were left open for interpretation, and because of that interpretation you have varying results. That is a subjective reality.

My spidey sense is tingling

In the summer of 2002 Sony Pictures released the highly anticipated adaptation of the popular comic book series Spider-Man.  The film, staring Tobey Maguire and directed by Evil Dead alum Sam Raimi, would go on to smash box office records and usher in a new era of superhero driven cinema.   While many passed off the movie as “popcorn fare”  others saw it as something more.

While the film does brush up against such intriguing topics as the military-industrial complex post 9/11 and the effects a non-traditional family has on adolescence, the most gripping storyline involves young Peter Parker.

At the onset of the film Parker is a social outcast.  Yes, he is a “nerd,” but he is also awkward around girls and ridiculed by his fellow classmates.  While Parker is a brilliant burgeoning scientist, this is overshadowed by his inability to woo classmate and neighbor Mary Jane Watson.  During a field trip to a science museum, Parker is bitten by a genetically altered spider, and things begin to change.

On the surface, the rest of the story follows Parker as he gains new powers and new notoriety as the aforementioned Spider-Man.  However, the subtext of the film revolves around Parker’s budding adolescence and how he deals with his onsetting masculinity.

Parker, after all, is a teenager, and the movie deals with the awkward changes of puberty on a grandiose scale.  For example, one day Parker discovers that his body produces a sticky grey substance.  He then proceeds to spend hours in his room forcing his aunt and uncle to wonder aloud what he does up there all the time.  In one particularly entertaining sequence, Parker’s Uncle Ben goes up to Peter’s room because he has been hearing a lot of noise.  When he knocks on the door to ask what Peter is up to, the director cuts to Parker sitting in his room with a sheepish grin on his face and “web” hanging everywhere.   All masturbation allusions aside, the filmmakers use Parker’s “web-slinging” ability to illustrate that a change has taken place.

Another way the filmmakers use Parker’s changes to assert his masculinity is in his interactions with his fellow classmates.  During lunch one day, Parker’s new abilities seem to be going haywire, and he accidentally incurs the wrath of the school cool guy/bully.  In what has traditionally been considered a rite of passage since the dawn of man, a fight breaks out.  Yes, Parker wins quite handily, but he also scares himself and the people around him.

This forces him to make a costume, or, in effect, forces him to hide his masculinity.  He does this for several reasons.  As mentioned earlier, Parker is confused and afraid of his new “self.”  By creating a costume Parker can seamlessly transition from one identity to another.  In other words, he can grow into a man while still reverting back to the more familiar teenaged state.  Another reason Parker creates another identity for himself is so that he can reintroduce himself to the world.  Everyone around him already knows “Peter Parker,” and they all have preconceived notions of who he is.  By taking on the Spider-Man identity, Parker can overcome those precoceived notions.

Nowhere is this more clear than in his relationship with Mary Jane.  After pining after Mary Jane his entire life, it isn’t until he becomes Spider-Man that she even notices him.  In fact, she falls in love with Spider-Man an entire movie before she falls in love with Peter Parker.  Again, Parker uses the Spider-Man moniker to overcome people’s, in the case Mary Jane, preconcieved notions about Peter Parker.

At least he didn't buy a motorcycle.

While Parker becomes more familiar with his new identity, both as Spider-Man and an adult male, his friend’s father Norman Osborne is going through a similar change.  Osborne is a successful industrialist who, among other things, develops weapons for the military.  His most recent contract calls for the development for a super soilder.  After several failed attempts to create this soilder, the government and OsCorp (Norman’s own company), decide to fire Osborne.

Osborne has spent his life developing this company and being removed from it emasculates him.  Where he was once a successful captain of industry, he is a now a failure who can’t even control his own company.  In what can only be described as a mid-life crisis on steroids, Osborne infuses himself with the super soilder formula and becomes the Green Goblin.

Much like Parker becomes Spider-Man do deal with his newly gained masculinty, Osborne becomes the Green Goblin to show everyone that he is still a man.  What ensues for the rest of the movie is a battle bewtween the two over who can rightfully inhabit their new male form.

In essence, the battle between Parker and Osborne is generational as well as timeless.  Osborne and his Goblin represent the old guard trying to maintain their status in a changing word, while Peter and Spider-Man represent the new guard trying to make a name for itself.  This is a classic power struggle between generations represented in everything from King Lear to George Lucas’ Star Wars.

In the end, Peter and Spider-Man win.  By defeating the Green Goblin, Parker establishes his “right to masculinity.”  He has suffered through a trial, and he has emerged victorious.  Much like the Sioux Indians made the young boys in the tribe kill a buffalo before they could be considered men, Peter had to defeat the the Green Goblin to prove to himself and the world that he belonged in this new, masculine world.  Peter Parker began the movie Spider-Man as a boy, but in the end–he is a man.

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

I was going to try to go the whole Republican convention without writing anything.  I thought that since I didn’t write anything about the democrats it would somehow be unfair to the GOP if I suddenly took umbrage with something they said.

So instead, I took umbrage with something they did.

I don’t know if anyone else saw this last night but throughout John McCain’s speech the camera would cut to protesters being escorted out of the assembly hall.  These protesters would also yell things during the speech prompting the crowd to break out in a drowning chant of “U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A.”  Even Sen. McCain was forced to acknowledge the protesters saying, “don’t be distracted by the noise and the static.”

I don’t think any other string of events could magnify the problems of the Republican party more clearly and symbolically than those drowning chants of “U-S-A.”  Since 9/11 the reining political motif has been that if you disagree with the government you are somehow less patriotic than those that lead us blindly into recession and interminable war.  From flag pins to wire taps, blunt patriotism has been used to justify and squash the rising tide of political dissenters.

Granted, the protesters probably deserved to be kicked out of the building.  To paraphrase the great American philosopher Henry David Thoreau, an asshole in the right is still an asshole.  But for McCain and his ilk to dismiss protest with a chanting mob and a clever turn of phrase trivializes the very patriotism the GOP is so quick to flaunt.

It’s as if the Republicans do not want to admit that there is anything wrong with the way the government has been run for the last eight years.  It’s like some ass-backwards chorus out of Greek tragedy.

They suspended habeas corpus.  U-S-A.  They are tapping our phones.  U-S-A.  They invaded a nation preemptively.  U-S-A.  The trade defecit is at an all time high. U-S-A.  This generation is the most pessimistic in history.  U-S-A.

What might be misconstrued as a rallying cry, comes off as blind and ineffective nationalism.  The Republicans refuse to believe that anything is wrong because of the simple fact that we live in the United States of America.  They believe somehow the country’s mere presence on a map will lead them out of the darkness and into the favor of both the citizens and the international community.

Yes, McCain said in his speech that the country needs change, and that things cannot continue the way they have.  But those are just words.  His actions point to the exact opposite.  I know it would be ridiculous of me to expect McCain to have a heart to heart with those protesters there in the hall, but to symbolically brush them aside as he did is indefensible.  A president cannot fix the problems of our country if he refuses to acknowledge them.

Again, I know that McCain acknowledged them in his speech, but the phrase is just as true now as it always has been–actions speak louder than words.  And right now, McCain’s actions not only display a disconnect with the American public, but they also promise that his administration will simply be more of the same.

A showdown in the second week of the season? Or is the Ohio State USC game a preview of the BCS Championship?

Let the trumpets sound Hail to the Victors and Fight On; unleash Bevo and Traveller; hear the 12th Man roar. College football is about to begin. Roll out the Ole Ball Coach and the Jeweled Shillelagh. Go to the Swamp or between the Hedges. Visit a valley–Happy or Death. What is a Buckeye? Or a Sooner? Exactly what is happening when the Golden Domers meet Trojans? Bring on the East Coast bias. Bring on the Cardinal and the Orange. The spread option and the fun and gun. Who’s ready for “Whoa Nelly” or the Heisman? It’s time for my third annual college football preview bonanza.

Like last year, I will give an overview of each conference, and I will pick the winner and a dark horse (the Dark Horse cannot be ranked in the current top 25). I will also try to make a hilarious category for each conference, as well as give you the national championship game participants and winner. I will also be making a Heisman pick. So let’s get started.

Pac-10

This is a rebuilding year for a lot of teams in the conference. The pass happy league has traditional powers USC and Oregon replacing starting QBs, while frequent basement dwellers like Washington and Arizona are riding high on the prospects of their experienced signal callers. As always we’ll have to wait and see if Cal can get its shit together and overcome last seasons complete and utter collapse

Winner: USC

That’s a reach right? USC has won the conference title for seven years straight, and I don’t see that stopping anytime soon. Yes, they have huge question marks on offense: Can Mark Sanchez get it done? Will Patrick Turner and Vidal Hazelton remove their heads from their asses, and will the running back situation ever sort itself out? Their is a one word answer to that question–defense. This team reminds me a lot of the team that Matt Leinart took over from Carson Palmer. Expect Brian Cushing and company to carry the Trojans over some early rough patches at Virginia and against Ohio State while Sanchez gets his footing.

Dark Horse: Arizona

I like Willie Tuitama in his senior year. I know people have been waiting for this Arizona squad to make the leap for what seems like forever, but with Mike Stoops’ job on the line it will be interesting to see how his team responds. Arizona also benefits from having a cake walk non-conference schedule (New Mexico, Toledo and Idaho), and they play USC, Cal and rival ASU at home.

Ridiculous

Most Bush League Program: Oregon State

Every attempt the Beavs have made to rise above the shadow of Oregon has blown up in their face. Especially when their attempt to have “cool” uniforms like the Ducks ended up looking like black and orange training bras.

The Big 12

This conference is impossible to predict. ust when you think it comes down to the winner of the Texas, Oklahoma game, some upstart like Missouri or Kansas State throws a wrench into the works. However, I do expect Kansas to replicate some of last year’s success because coach Mark Mangino will eat opponents’ star players.

Winner: Missouri

While Oklahoma would seem to be the obvious choice in this conference, they just have a habit of losing big games to quality teams. Also, Missouri went 11-2 last year and returns nine starters on a team that finished second in the conference in total offense. Missouri also benefits from not having to play Oklahoma during the regular season and they get division rival Kansas at home. It really comes down to the play of Heisman hopeful Chase Daniels as he deals with the national spotlight at a program not used to it.

Dark Horse: Oklahoma State

“This blog is garbage, and the writer who made it is garbage. Attacking amateur athletes for doing everything right…are you kidding me? Where are we at as a society today? Come after me. I’m a MAN. I’m FORTY…Who’s the kid here? Who’s the kid here? Are you kidding me? That’s all I’ve got to say.”

Team you didn’t know existed: Baylor

Apparently it’s located in Waco, Texas, as an enrollment of 14,000 and is the largest Baptist university in the country.

The Big 10

Apparently no one got the memo to notify anyone from this conference that it wasn’t 1974 anymore. Why these teams continue to think that running the ball fifty times a game without even an hint of a passing game will lead to national championships confounds me to no end. Sure, Michigan is going to try to institute the spread, and Purdue runs a version of the Fun and Gun that worked in 2001 when Drew Brees was the quarterback, but until the conference undergoes major change they will continue to get embarrassed by quality non-conference opponents like Appalachian State.

Winner: Ohio State

On paper this team looks scary good. Nine returning starters on offense and nine returning starters on defense. They should without question, run the table in the conference. However, they have to play at USC the second week of the season, and Illinois and Wisconsin on the road. This team could either be extremely dynamic on offense with a returning quarterback and receiving core, or, more likely, they could be extremely boring and give Beanie Wells the ball 30 times a game. Either way, they should beat Minnesota no problem.

Dark Horse: Northwestern

Why? Why not.

Funniest Joke about Joe Paterno’s age I have ever heard:

A friend of mine who went to Penn State recently said that Joe Paterno doesn’t stand on the sidelines anymore, and all that footage they show of him stalking the sidelines is stock from 1983. It’s why he “refuses” to wear head phones.

The Big East

For the last two years I have written that “if the best thing you have to offer comes out of West Virginia you know you are in trouble.” And each year I’ve written that, I have picked a team not from Morgantown. With Syracuse, Cincinnati and Uconn the Big East really is the JV BCS conference.

Winner: South Florida

This team rose as high as number two in the polls last year before going on a three game skid. They have experience on both sides of the ball, and they don’t have to deal with the constant pressure of the Rich Rodriguez soap opera. Plus, that have a guy named Grothe, and that’s a pretty cool name.

Dark Horse: Rutgers

No more Ray Rice, but they are still the University of New Jersey. So, at least they have that going for them.

Team with a kid I went to Elementary school with: Syracuse

His name is Ryan Howard. He’s number 21, and he is the starting punt returner.

ACC

You know for all the crap the Big East gets for being a weak conference, the ACC really is the Andrew Ridgeley of college football conferences. Is that reference not obscure enough for you? How about the ACC is to conferences as Captain Needa is to finding the Millennium Falcon.

Winner: Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech is kind of like USC except that instead of being picked to win based on previous successes they get picked to win by default. No one is going to put their credibility on the line and pick Boston College or Wake Forest. Virginia has consistently posted around eight wins for the last 10 years, which is better than any of the other roller coaster programs in this conference can say.

Dark Horse: Duke

I’m calling it here and now Duke will shock the nation by winning four games this year.

Storyline no one cares about except for Ryan Yanchocik, myself and possibly Matt Makowski: James Bryant

How will the University of Miami overcome the transfer of Hurricane James “The Bonecrusher” Bryant to Louisville? It’s not like you can go anywhere to find a third string linebacker.

SEC

See, the thing about SEC is that it really is the best conference in the country. Their 5th place team going into this season is Tennessee. The other conferences can’t match that. Here are the 5th place teams by conference according to the Athlon season preview magazine: ACC: North Carolina, Big 12: Texas Tech, Big East: Cincinnati, Big Ten: Michigan, and Pac-10: Cal. What do all those teams have in common except for Michigan? No recent national championships and no recent conference championships. Hell, none of them have even been to a BCS game (again, except Michigan). It’s just SEC fans won’t shut up about how unappreciated they are. Their like a supermodel who gets a boob job. You’re already a supermodel? What the hell do you need those for?

Winner: Florida

I’m not on the midnight train to Georgia. Yes, Georgia returns the core to their offense, but they also have inexperience up front. Florida, on the other hand, returns a Heisman trophy winner, Percy Harvin and eight players on defense. Plus, Florida gets LSU at home and Georgia in Jacksonville, which, the last time I checked, is in Florida.

Dark Horse: South Carolina

Steve Spurrier’s a good coach and it’s year four of his tenure. They should upset at least one of the SEC’s top teams. Perhaps LSU when they come to town October 18.

National Championship Game: USC vs. Ohio State

Tell me if this doesn’t sound like a possibility for BCS douchebaggery. USC and Ohio State play each other in the second week of the season. The loser will drop a couple of spots in the polls, but not too many because they lost to a top five team. Both teams run the table in their conferences and all the sudden we have a 12-0 team vs. an 11-1 team. If this happens, and believe me it can and probably will, the universe will collapse in on itself.

Winner: USC

I’m a homer, and I do believe this is the third year in a row I have picked USC. I am o-fer.

Heisman: I have no idea

I just want to use this space to defend Tim Tebow’s winning of the trophy last year. So the big knock on Tebow is that he’s a system quarterback. Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Every quarterback, running back, receiver, lineman, safety and punter is a system whatever. A coaches job is to put the players he recruits into a system that best utilizes their talents. Every team has a system. Carson Palmer had a system; Eric Crouch had a system and even a running back like Barry Sanders had a system. In fact all the Heisman winning running backs were in a system. It was called “let’s give the ball to O.J., Ricky or Ron 30 times or more.” So Tebow’s touchdown numbers are somehow inflated because he always gets the ball in the redzone? How about we think about why he always gets the ball in the redzone, and how he always manages to score touchdowns. You can’t kill a guy for doing what he’s supposed to do, and you can’t discredit him when he does it well.

Lest we forget...

With the Olympics drawing to a close and the accomplishments of Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt quickly fading behind the ramp up to the Presidential election season, it has become apparent that Olympic achievements do not have the staying power that they once did. Remember when Karrie Strug won the gold medal with a broken leg and throughout the next three months she would randomly show up on shows like Melrose Place where the actors would point at her and say, “is that Karrie Strug?” because the writers couldn’t come up with an adequate Strug-centric plot. No, you probably don’t. Mary Lou Retton won the gold medal in gymnastics and she was in Scrooged. Does that ring any bells? No?

Anyway, my point is that the Olympics have lost some of their glamour in a media culture constantly searching for its next story. Plus, who has really watched the Olympics since Phelps won his eighth medal. The second week lineup of events has read like the red headed stepchild of competition: power walking, diving and synchronized swimming, just to name a few. I think the Olympics should add a couple of sports to drum up interest in the second week.

I have a feeling your whole family is going down...

Dodgeball: This is probably the most obvious choice and the least creative. I cannot think of a single person that would not enjoy watching grown men and women hit each other in the face with rubber balls. Plus there would be the hilarity of someone from team Georgia throwing a ball into the crotch of someone from team Russia. The Olympics do not have enough sports where countries can work out their geopolitical aggressions, and dodgeball would provide a nice outlet.

Capture the Flag: Tell me this wouldn’t be awesome. This could even be divided into two events. First, there would be indoor capture the flag. This event would focus on speed. It would be played on half a football field and have around 10 people per team. Unlike regular capture the flag where you simply need to get the flag to your base, this version would feature a set number of balls or batons or something you can grab, and the object of the game would be to have more “whatevers” in your basket than the other team when time runs out. It’s sort of like Powerball from American Gladiators.  (See video below.)

The other event would be outdoor capture the flag. This game would feature more traditional elements where one team wins when they have the other team’s flag in their base. It would be played in a large field or woods featuring various terrains. There would have to be some kind of twist to make it watchable, and it would be really hard to film because the camera men would give away the positions of the other players. With a few kinks worked out this could be extremely entertaining. I think some kind of GPS system combined with helmet cams and stationary cameras planted throughout the course would really make things interesting.

Lawn Rugby: This isn’t a real sport anywhere but on the street where I grew up as a kid. The game was really closer to handball than rugby, but we were eight and could’ve cared less. The game featured a hockey net set up on both sides of the lawn and a one of those mini rubber basketballs that comes with a Playschool rim. Each team had four players: a goalie and three fielders. Besides that, it was no holds barred. The only rules were the sidewalk was out of bounds, and if you were tackled you had to give up possession of the ball. I think if grown men tried to play this game someone would definitely die. Also, the out-of-bounds must be made of concrete and the players can’t wear helmets or any other kind of protective gear. No one got hurt when I was eight. Why would they get hurt now?

I hate that clown...

Mini-Golf: This is pretty self-explanatory. The best part about this is the host country would go out of its way to design the most elaborate and complicated mini-golf course in history. Can you imagine what kind of course communist China would have designed. Sure, it probably would have been 75% computer generated and the statues representing China’s diversity would have been constructed from the bones of dissenters, but it would’ve been awesome.

Kickball: With baseball and softball leaving the Olympics there is now a lack of base oriented sports. Kickball would have international appeal because it’s a combination of soccer and baseball. The only problem would be calibrating the ball/field for countries who field their washed up soccer stars. Although, now that I think about it, most soccer players can kick the ball three quarters of the field and that’s like 75-80 yards (225-240 ft), so a modified softball field might work. However, the “no bouncies” rule would be in effect as well as the four foul balls equals an out. Plus, if you strike out, everyone playing is obligated by rule to make fun of you—forever.

...and Matt Makowski is victorious.

Wallyball: This is probably the one sport with actual Olympic potential. It combines volleyball with racquetball. The players play in an enclosed space, and they are allowed to hit shots off the walls. Instead of bump, set, spike, you have bump, set, ricochet the ball of the wall and into the face of an unsuspecting opponent. Plus, you would have people diving and jumping into walls to make digs—this would be awesome. You think it’s intense when basketball players jump into the crowd to stop the ball from going out of bounds? Imagine players brazenly throwing themselves into walls to make the gold medal save.

Yes, they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell.

The inspiration for this comes from two sources: First, this scene from Pulp Fiction, and second this sketch from season two of the Chappelle Show. With that in mind I have reinterpreted Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” speech for Mr. Jackson. As a fair warning, I don’t really know who is reading this still so both the links and the speech after the jump contain copious amounts of swearing and violence. Not really for the faint of heart.

Hamlet’s “To be or not to be?” speech channeled through Samuel Jackson.

Boy, it’s a God damned quandary: To do, or not to do?

Whether it’s better to face the fucking whim

of dumb, motherfucking luck, or to

strap-up and make that motherfucker your bitch.

To die–shit, boy– to sleep—No.

I think sleep, motherfucking sleep,

will get me out of this here shit.

You’re fucking dreaming; you dumb son of a bitch.

But wait a second, hold on now,

that’s the crux of this whole fucking matter

because when my dumb ass be dead,

what the fuck will there be to look forward to?

Motherfucker, that’s worth thinking about.

Life is a hungry fucking dog that just eats

and eats and eats that has common courtesy

to shit you out when all is said and done.

What’s the motherfucking point of this here shit?

Fear—pure and simple—I’m God damned scared.

I eat out of the big bowl of shit

life feeds me every fucking day just because of fear.

See, I don’t know what will happen to my dumb ass.

So instead of being a man about this here shit,

I cry like a little bitch. Stop fucking crying,

and take what’s coming to you.

Batman is Jung

Because I am a dork I am about to reference a deleted scene from Pulp Fiction. It occurs when John Travolta’s character goes to pick up Uma Thurman’s character for their date. As Travolta sits their rolling a cigarette, Thurman comes out from wherever she was with a video camera and begins to interview Travolta. The question that generates the most conversation between the two is when Thurman asks Travolta if he is a Beatles man or an Elvis man. I forget exactly how it goes, but the agreement the two characters come to is that while it may be perfectly acceptable to like both, you can only truly love one.

I believe the same thing goes for Batman and Superman. Of all the superheroes, except for maybe Spider-Man, Batman and Superman are our two greatest and most recognizable. Like the Beatles and Elvis, everything that came after them bears their mark. A story can only be told so many ways, and Batman and Superman not only did it first, but they also did it the best.

So, I am a Batman guy, pure and simple. I can watch Superman movies and shows and enjoy them, but nothing else in the Superhero world gives me the joy of something involving the caped crusader. Even the goofy ’60s TV show starring Adam West ranks higher on my list of hero-centric entertainment than anything featuring Clark Kent. But the real reason I like Batman more than Superman is that he’s just a better character.

All superheroes are rooted in mythology. Our brains are hardwired to enjoy the same kinds of stories told over and over again. Carl Jung called it our collective unconscious. Jung believed that the human psyche could be patterned after archetypes that he described as innate, universal prototypes for ideas and that may be used to interpret observations. Basically what he’s saying is that somewhere, floating in our sub-conscience, it a set of rules, images and characters that speak directly to who we are as a people and culture. An easier way to look at this would be how cultures generate themselves out of a religion. Despite all their differences, most religions, at their core values and principles, are generally the same.

One part Hercules, one part Jesus, Superman has the most obvious connections to mythology and religion. Just because I know comparing Superman to Jesus is going to get me in trouble, let’s start there. He’s an almighty being sent from on high by his father to protect and save the human race. That’s John 3:16 in paraphrased form, but it might as well be the next Superman movie’s tagline. I am not trying to be blasphemous; I am simply pointing out that these characters are rooted in something that goes deeper than the average popcorn movie.

So while Batman’s appeal isn’t quite as lofty, it is entirely more visceral. It all comes down to one simple fact, Batman can die. Yeah, Superman can die too, but it takes a made up rock from space. On the other hand, Batman can be done in by a stray bullet or even something random like a drunk driver. Because of his mortality, the Batman ethos is steeped in complexities. Superman can afford to be morally righteous and high handed because the chance that one of his decisions will kill him is severely limited. However, with Batman, every decision has consequences. I’m not saying that Superman doesn’t face tough choices; I am simply saying that with Batman the stakes are higher.

It is no coincidence that the two booms in superhero popularity have occurred after national tragedy. The first boom happened during World War II, and the second occurred after 9/11. The star of the first wave of superheroes was Superman. Created by two Jewish men at the height of Nazi Germany, Superman represented the moral righteousness and outrage of the generation. The country, as well as Superman, saw themselves as pure good fighting pure evil, and Superman, like the country’s moral will, had to be indestructible. There was no choice, good had to triumph. Since the ’40s and ’50s, times have become more complicated, and a generation must seek out a more complicated hero.

The obvious ties between the two Christopher Nolan Batman movies and our generation lies with the villains. Ra’s Al Ghul and the Joker don’t want to accomplish a simple task like ruling the world, they want society to destroy itself, and not only destroy itself, but eat away at itself from the inside. Like it or not, they’re terrorists (they use chemical agents and exploding buildings for goodness sake), but they aren’t George Bush bogey man terrorists that somehow threaten our existence from caves a world away, even they have political agendas. No, the Batman villains are monsters that thrive on the worst aspects of humanity–fear and panic. In the Dark Knight, Alfred the butler says, “Some men just want to watch the world burn,” and it’s hard to look out upon the current local and global landscape and understand what he is talking about.

So, what about Batman? Batman has chosen to fight fire with fire. In Batman Begins he says he wishes to use fear against those who thrive on it, and The Dark Knight asks what separates Batman from the criminals he chases. Essentially, where do you draw the line between villain and villain-like? What keeps Batman afloat is his unwillingness to kill anyone. The Dark Knight would be an hour long if he simply chose to shoot Joker in the head, but then he would become a simple criminal and murderer. Because Batman is a flawed mortal, every time he chooses to do the right thing in the face of evil, it is a reaffirmation that good will always triumph.

Batman shows us that no matter what the stakes, or no matter how bad things get, as long as you stick to a moral code, there is always hope that good will prevail.

Yeah, this guy.

I remember in high school I was sitting at lunch one day and a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, sat down at the table looking very upset. We all ignored him for awhile until he finally spoke up. “Hey guys, do you ever go home after school and lock yourself in your room and listen to Dashboard and just cry?” We all waited a second for him to start laughing, hoping that he was joking, but by the look on his face we could tell that he wasn’t. This was my first venture into the world of “Emo.”

Starting in the early 2000’s a giant whine was spreading across the country. Pop-punk mentalities were being mixed with the nasal voiced angst of the next generation. This movement came to be called “Emo,” and its face was one Chris Carrabba. Carrabba fronted the one man band named Dashboard Confessional. He sang songs with titles such as “Screaming Infidelities” and “Vindicated” with lyrics such as, “As for now I’m gonna hear the saddest songs, /and sit alone and wonder, how you’re making out. / and as for me I wish that I was anywhere, with anyone, making out.”

Despite the sappy sentimentalism of the music, it took off. “Emo,” originally derived from a subgenre of the hardcore scene called “emotional hardcore,” seemed to be attracting hordes of disaffected youths much like the punk and Goth movements had earlier. However, like all subcultures, there was a backlash, and Carrabba and his band bore the brunt of it.

Now, I am no emo defender, but Chris Carrabba and his cronies are more rock and roll then most of his critics will ever be.

In order to justify that statement, I must first give a working definition of what it means to be “rock and roll.” There are two bands that come to mind: The Rolling Stones and Guns and Roses. Not only was their music great, but the mythos of the band elevated their stature. The drinking, drugs and whoring somehow elevated these musicians to demigod status. However, I do not think this alone makes them “rock and roll.” That starts at the very beginning.

What truly defines a band or artist as “rock and roll” stems directly from why they started playing music in the first place. Regardless of their reasons, if “to get laid” isn’t in their top two, than their rock and roll credibility takes a serious hit.

Honestly, think about it. Most people start their bands in high school. After “we just love playing music and performing,” what other reason is there to dedicate hours of your day mastering chord progressions if not for the promise of copious amounts of vagina. No band makes a lot of money while they are still in high school, and economics teaches us that no one does anything for an extended period of time unless it maximizes utility. The utility of forming a band in high school is attention, and more specifically, the attention of females.

Carrabba has mastered this better than anyone since Gene Simmons. I don’t honestly think that Simmons wants to parade around in black and white makeup with fireworks around him because he just loves the music. There is no excuse for a grown man to act that way unless he gets something out of it. Likewise, there is no reason for Carrabba to sing these over-the-top, emotional songs, and this is where Carrabba’s true genius shines.

Like Gene Simmons, Carrabba has tapped into something generational. Simmons’ antics were seen as dangerous and tempting, and for whatever reason this has long been attractive to women. Likewise, Carrabba has tapped into the image of the sensitive, sweet guy that has become desirable in the last 15-20 years. By taking this generational ideal to its extreme level, Carrabba not only gets plenty of ladies, but he also reaches that demigod status I mentioned earlier.

Adolescents, specifically early adolescents (12-15), seek out extremes. Everything in their lives is changing and chaotic so they lock on to things that are constant and homogenous. Every niche, whether it is Trekkies, jocks or those guys who play Dungeons and Dragons, initiates its newest members at these ages. Things like anime and music provide a pseudo-identity to those who are lost in the confusion of adolescence. This is how polarizing figures like Carrabba come to be.

To most, he is a self-important hack, but to his followers he represents everything they wish they could be. For all its “sticking it to the man,” rock stardom is really about being the coolest guy in the room. Jack White, Mick Jagger and David Bowie may cast themselves as outsiders, but that goes out the window anytime you have a crowd of 50,000 people yelling your name.

Carrabba, like his predecessors, has managed to pull off being a popular outsider. While they may not admit it, I believe most teenagers wish they could do the same. Being popular in high school simply means that you are allowed to date the most attractive people. By being a popular outsider, like Carrabba, you would be able to date whoever you want without having to sacrifice some part of your identity. Not only would it be socially acceptable to be yourself, but you would be rewarded for it.

Emo and its practitioners, like Carrabba, are simply another way for teenagers to identify themselves. Yes, the music is horrible and insidious, but its motivations are rock and roll. Sure, they probably love the music they make, but I guarantee they like getting laid even more.