So the only thing my sister wanted for Christmas is a Wii. She's 32, by the way. She's married and has three kids, but that's the only thing she wants, as a present for the entire family. So my mom bought the Wii, and I bought another controller to go with it- after all, it makes packaging a lot easier than buying gifts for five people.

My sister grew up in the age of the NES (That's the Nintendo Entertainment System, for the lesser educated out there) and her Wii is coming prepackaged with New Super Mario Bros- the awesome platformer released by Nintendo earlier this year. It was then that I realized that gamers who grew up in the 80s and 90s are now having their own families and watching a new age of kids experience video games- even moreso than the parents. So how can companies still produce crap games?

Sure, we know that Barbie, Transformers, every cartoon movie, and whatever other cartoons kids watch nowadays are going to convert their popularity into video game form. But is it still okay for those companies to produce terrible games, especially when we as present and future gamer parents know how bad some of these games are? Well, I used to think it was a ripoff, but actually, it's probably okay.

Using emulators to play some of the games that I grew up with showed me how different I perceive those games now. Most of them weren't too bad, but they were pretty repetitive. But then again, the things I look for in a game now aren't the things I looked for then. Graphics, gameplay, and control scheme aren't exactly factors that a ten year old looks for- if the box art is awesome, then we'll get our parents to pony up fifty bucks to buy the game, regardless of how bad it might be- and we played those games until the cartridges were worn out.

Writing this post reminds me of the difference in the way parents and children perceive other things like toys, movies, and even breakfast cereal. Parents make choices based on sensibility, while kids make their choices based on the way the box looks or by what they've seen on TV. Even if parents think they know what's best, that choice is usually wrong in the child's eyes because, after all, parents are uncool. Will Smith, Brad Pitt, and Morgan Freeman are three of the coolest parents around, and their kids will probably think they're uncool.

Parents tend to look at prices and overall advantages of buying things, and that usually ends in them not buying everything their kids want. If I'm not a super-rich parent, I'm sure that will be my line of thinking too. I will say this though; I admit to being a 12 year old in a 23 year old's body, and If I ever have kids and they beg for some video game, I'm sure my sensibilities will fade, and all I'll see is the really really cool box it comes in.

Terrelle Pryor Sells Sportsmanship Award...maybe he just needs a paycheck.

One of the highlights of the 2010 college football season was Terrelle Pryor and a few other OSU players getting caught selling stuff and receiving benefits- obviously in violation of NCAA rules and regulations. He and a few of his teammates got caught selling jerseys and championship rings, but two items in particular stand out.

1. A Gold Pants trinket, given to OSU football players BY THE SCHOOL to commemorate each victory over despised rival Michigan. That's a slight to tradition right there, and that's a slap in the face to every player who's earned that trinket and ever player who never did.

2. Pryor's 2008 Sportsmanship Award from the Fiesta Bowl. You can't make this stuff up.

It hasn't really been brought up because of it, but I want to re-pose an issue: should college athletes be getting paid for their on-field services? I think so, maybe now more than ever.

Auburn coach Gene Chizik got paid $600,000 for winning the national championship, yet his players won't see a dollar of that. For athletics to be such an institution where love of the game is preached, these people sure do make a lot of money....extrinsic motivators much?

My point though, is even if Gene Chizik was a coaching genius, nutritional specialist, motivational speaker, and personal trainer, he wasn't the one on the field risking life, limb, and concussion every week. That's what the players do, and to give someone more than half a million dollars while giving the "grunt workers" nothing is a real slight.

Sure, student athletes do get paid in that they get a free six figure education. Whether or not they decide to stay all four years is up to them. However, NCAA athletes are not even allowed to have part time jobs on the side....and thus, this is how situations like Pryor's happen in the first place.

Sure, you have the local pizza joint who probably feeds the players on cue, and a few other town stores may slice a few bucks off the price of something now and then. But what about side money? What about wanting to buy something you want or need, or even having the opportunity to save for something bigger like nicer clothes or a down payment on a car? I'm not saying these players should be making five or six figure salaries, but I will say that the NCAA is committing highway robbery of the highest offense by not giving the players some sort of stipend.

Players can work up to 20 hours part time, but considering that their time is already spoken for the second they sign their letter of intent, where do they find the time? Sure, maybe at a D-II or D-III school, a player may have more lenient coaches who don't have rigorous off-season training. But for Oregon football, Duke basketball, or Michigan hockey, the season never ends. When the season is in full swing, players are practicing, traveling on the road, or doing some other preparation work. Then, there's the off season, where sports are less time consuming, but still time consuming.  If it's not watching tape, it's conditioning. If it's not conditioning, it's some other kind of player meeting. And let's not forget that under all of these coaches and trainers pulling at you from every which way, there's still the obligation to go to class and make the grade.

The system as it is does not work, especially for D-I athletes. That is why the NCAA should pay the players a stipend taken directly from the Athletic Department budget. Considering the bowl games, hosting regional tournament series, ticket sales, TV coverage and more, most of these schools have the means to pay their players. Not every player comes from a family who has the means to fork over spending money every month-  a $500 monthly stipend doesn't equal 20 hours of minimum wage work a week, but it does help pay monthly expenses, like cell phone bills, car insurance, dry cleaning, haircuts, and enough left over to have some fun money to spend with friends.

Don't get me wrong- players do receive get a free education, housing, meals, and in many cases, get to travel all over the country. But an empty wallet in college does suck. Hard. So in the end, the NCAA should pay these kids a stipend- it's pennies compared to what they really make, and they'll take a big step in the right direction towards making college athletics better for the students who build programs to where they are today.

Two Tiers in a Bucket

Revolutionary changes are on the horizon for the NFL. They are addressing safety concerns (even if their concern rivals that of an overprotective mother), a new CBA is on the horizon, and there's a very good chance that the league will extend play to 18 games in the near future. But one thing that I wish the league would do is create a two tiered system like in British Football.

In a tiered league, you have the top half of teams playing in one division, while the lower half play in another. At the end of each season (or a cycle of seasons in some cases), the best teams in the bottom league replace the worst teams in the top league. The promotion/demotion system forces teams to play their best year round, especially those who play in the upper league and fear demotion.

There are 32 teams in the NFL. What you do is you put the top 16 teams in the upper conference and the other half in the bottom. For the sake of things needing names, we'll call the upper conference Tier 1 and the lower conference Tier 2. You play each team in your tier once, which is 15 games, and you play 3 opponents in the other tier, supporting the league's goal to move to an 18 game season. Playoff spots go to the top 8 Tier 1 teams, and the Top 4 Tier 2 teams would act as Wild Cards in the current system, playing teams 5-8 in the Wild Card playoff week. In soccer, Tier 2 teams can only look forward to getting promoted, as the overall championship is only for Tier 1 teams. At least in my system, any team can make it to the Superbowl, allowing fans to make a fain investment in their team since they're not doomed from the start.

At the end of each season, the top 6 Tier 2 teams move up into Tier 1, where they replace the 6 worst teams there. This makes teams more responsible to the welfare of the game, and not to obtaining a high draft spot. People will be more apt to ask their teams "Why can't we get promoted and not just "Why don't we make the playoffs?" Tiering gives teams another way to take small steps toward becoming a better team. Instead of having to make goals that are three season away (like taking a cellar team to the playoffs), a smaller, yet more achievable goal in the short run would be to earn one of the 6 spots into Tier 1.

A two tiered system would also make it easier for more markets to enter the NFL, as the system would allow any competent market to enter Tier 2, even if just on a 5 year trial basis. Instead of having to re-do schedules and restructure divisions, all you have to do is add a team into Tier 2. For every pair of teams that enter the league (and this wouldn't happen very often), you even the number of teams in each tier. Schedule-wise, the tier with the extra team plays one less inter-league game. The league requires a 65,000 stadium seat minimum for a team to be considered for entry into the NFL, but there is no reason why Toronto and Los Angeles should not have NFL teams now. A more open league entry policy would make this system really work, but knowing the NFL, the interest always have been and always will be those of the owners. No commissioner is going to have balls to stand up to the owners and say "Hey, this is about creating a competitive environment for all parties involved, not making you a truckload of money." Somewhere along the way, the love of the sport got lost in the mix, and the NFL has lost its way.

Dumbing Us Down in 30 Second Intervals

I am a proud man. I stand by my fellow man when he is wronged, and justice must be served. Now women do have a lot of double standards to work through, but there is one that they never mention: Women who bond against men are seen as strong, independent, and brave. Men who bond against women are seen as chauvinist pigs. I like women...a lot....but I'll risk looking like a chauvinist if it means standing up for what I feel is wrong. If you read my title, you may be able to infer what I'm going to go after here.

Yep, it's those damn TV commercials that make men look like complete idiots.

I'm sure some women will read this and day to themselves "But men are stupid!". Hold the phone. We may do some things that make us SEEM stupid, but we are far from it. Moreover, all women aren't that clever.

And these ads are EVERYWHERE. According to these ads, women are flawlessly outfoxing, manipulating, and outthinking their husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and potential suitors. Not only that, but where do they find the men for these commercials? Most of these guys are greasy, overweight, bumbling fools who probably are pretty dumb in real life. Not once have I seen a commercial where men turn the tables on women.

Sure, I understand that companies want to appeal to women, as they are more active consumers than men. But do we have to appeal to women at the expense of making our gender look like imbeciles? Does it take that level of coddling and compliment-fishing to make women choose one brand over another?

Here are some of my favorite examples- one DiGiorno pizza commercial has a wife questioning her husband about mud tracks on their carpet. He lies and says it was the pizza guy, but then she finds out at the end of the commercial that it was actually her husband, who left the DiGiorno box on the kitchen counter. Sure, he probably shouldn't have told the lie, but if I were going to do that, I would have destroyed the evidence first.

Another recent Sprint commercial that touts their new all-in-one unlimited 3G package starts with a guy and a girl sitting at a diner. She sends him a text right there saying she wants to break up. While she's overenthusiastic about it, he seems kinda dejected. To make matters worse, she rubs salt in his wounds by changing her Facebook relationship status, sending him an email, all with a grin on her face.  Then, to top it all off, she calls him WHILE SITTING RIGHT ACROSS FROM HIM. Not exactly subtle about the breakup, now is she? I've got a sinking feeling she'd been a cheating whore for the past couple of months anyways. That guy can do better.

There's another where the guy is tying a fan to his cat's tail to get a stagnant air freshener to spread a fragrance in their home. His wife then rolls her eyes, gives him a pitied look, and plugs in a Glade Air Freshener. I don't think any man would be dumb enough to try that, let alone be concerned about the fact that his house doesn't smell like fresh lilies.

Last, but not least, is a Domino's commercial. The husband says to his wife that the pizza will arrive in 30 minutes, comes out in a silk robe, and basically proposes a round of sex. She then says to him in a deadpan/cut-down (i.e. Leah Remini-like) way "Well, what are we gonna do with the other 28 minutes?". The only person to ever pull that line off and be funny was Mrs. Roper on Three's Company....God bless that woman.

Here's the way I see it....it's unhealthy to make new friends by making fun of old ones. Same applies here- I hate these commercials, and although they don't affect my decision making, they're not enjoyable. I'd like to laugh or be influenced to buy something when I see a commercial, and not have to go "man, that's fucked up" every 30 seconds.

I am Man, hear me roar.

S-N-Hell

I have grown to loathe Saturday Night Live. In the last couple years, the only time the show seems to be funny is when former cast members like Tina Fey, Amy Poehler or Will Ferrell make guest appearances. We'll just throw Betty White in there for good measure, too.

But that's not the only reason I have a dislike for the show now; it's the overcrowded, underwhelming 90 minute debacle that the show has become. Ratings have declined, the show won't have any veteran cast members other than Kenan Thompson after this season, and these things make it clear that they are currently in a rebuilding season.

The show has been in this position many times before, but they haven't really had to deal with rebuilding seasons since the 80s and early 90s. In those cases, the show was often on the verge of cancellation, and series creator Lorne Michaels has stated that there were a few times where he's had to beg for another season and clean house in order to get it.

Right now, SNL needs some consistency, and here's what I'd do as a network exec to get the show back on the right track.

1: Cut the show to 60 minutes.

By the time you've reached the 70 minute mark or so, the only things left are the last musical performance and the goodbye. The opening sketch usually isn't funny and is really only a lead in to the credits. I say we cut everything down. All That, Nickelodeon's popular children's sketch show, wasn't live, but they did everything they needed to do in 30 FRIGGIN MINUTES. They had an opening Green Room sketch, an intro, roughly 5 sketches, and a musical guest. Why can't SNL do all of that in 60 minutes? Basically, the SNL staff takes what Second City Comedy takes months to do in putting a show together, and crams it into a week. To do that effectively week in and week out, you need people that can handle that sort of rigor, and I don't know if the current cast can do that. If I had one or two less sketches each week, and they were shorter, I could probably make them funnier in the long run, since I have more time to work with less. Less is more, people. I'd rather see the cast put together eight funny sketches than thirteen, with only three of them actually being funny.

2: Monitor the celebrity guest

I know that being the celebirty guest comes with some prestige, but it goes farther than I could ever imagine. Apparently the host, along with Lorne Michaels, gets the final say on which sketches will air and which ones won't. That's a lot of power to give to someone who may not be that funny in the first place. I think the position as host of SNL is reward enough that you don't need to give someone that much rope. And then they might not even be funny in their own sketches! Okay, sometimes they are. But what holds true is that more often than not, they aren't funny, and are normally thrown into skits that don't take advantage of their brand of humor. If I'm going to give someone that kind of power, they've got to have a proven comedy repertoire- Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin are good examples, Gabourey Sidibe is not.

3: Cut the musical performances to one

The musical guest performs twice, and let's be honest- unless the musical guest is a scantily clad woman, nobody ever watches both performances. Cut it to one, and merge it with the end of the show- that saves time on the back end.

4: Change the show's time.

Why is this show on at 10:30 at night? They do nothing different at 10:30 than what I see on TV two hours before. I know I've been preaching consistency, and this is the least consistent thing I could possibly suggest, since the show has been in this timeslot for years, but if the show airs at that time, I at least want to see or hear something more vulgar. Otherwise, what's the difference in putting the show on at 8 or 9 PM?

I really want to like SNL, but they're trying my patience.

Maybe That Guy Is On To Something....

Before Monday's New York Governor debates, nobody knew the name Jimmy McMillan. After the debates, it was clear that he was the star that night. McMilla, who represents the Rent is Too Damn High Party, may not have been the most well-versed of the seven candidates, but he was definitely the most entertaining- not to mention that he gained a lot of supporters since, well, the rent IS too damn high. This is especially true in New York, where a one bedroom rat-trap will cost you about $68 billion a month. And no, we're not talking about Zimbabwean dollars. Take a look-see at some of Mr. McMillan's finer points from Monday night.



EDIT: And here he is on the Sean Hannity Show just a week later:


We have a clear winner here, people. Someone get me to New York state, so I can claim citizenship there and vote for this man. He is the most entertaining politician I have EVER seen. He's going to be this generation's Mr. T- an angry black man who is more entertaining than all of TV put together, except no mohawk and gaudy jewelry. But man, does he have one bitchin' mustache. Apparently after the debate, he got 40,000 campaign donations. Well played, sir. Well played.

Hey, Motherf****r...Guess What I Know?

Let's get in a time machine and go back to June 2009. I was fresh out of college with no job, no plans, and no idea what I was going to do. So in the meantime, I decided to do what I did best-- ask questions.

I went to my Facebook profile and posted a trivia question. Not even 10 minutes later, I had 8 replies. After a day where I asked 11 or 12 questions and kept a running score, I noticed that people liked answering my questions on Facebook. Why? Because it makes them look smart in an open forum. Soon after, I saw that two of my buddies from quiz bowl, Kevin Render and Ivory Johnson, both started doing the same thing. I wasn't mad- I was happy that more of us were getting in the spirit since they, like me, had nothing better to do that summer. After carrying this on for about 2 weeks, Ivory came up with the idea that the three of us come together and form a group dedicated to this. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how we formed...wait for it...

THE THREE TOWERS OF TRIVIA!

But wait...it wasn't called that just yet.

We got a lot of our fellow HCASC (That's Honda Campus All Star Challenge, for the record) alums and off season players to join and play the game. It was rough at first, because we had our fair share of cheaters in that first run. But we made it through quite successfully, considering the small operation that we were running.

During our first season, we decided to award bonus points to whoever came up with the best name for our group. We eventually narrowed it down to three choices: Mind Bogglers, The Three Towers of Trivia, and Hey Motherfucker? Guess What I Know!, with the last one nearly becoming our permanent name. In retrospect, it might have worked just as well.

Now, the three of us our back in school and/or working, so our schedules aren't as flexible as they used to be. We've had our fair share of ups and downs, but the ups have far outweighed the downs, and I know I wouldn't trade this for any other experience.We've asked nearly 900 questions, with out 1000th coming sometime this year, and we started our third season this week. I couldn't be much happier than that. If you want to play, join our Facebook group HERE, and you'll receive questions 3 days a week. If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or concerns, post to our wall! In the meantime, happy playing, and no quizjacking!

Mega Monster Aggro Showcase

One of my favorite parts of being a game show fan is watching how other countries pull off variants of shows in the US. For example, Family Feud in England gave away cars long before we did. Jeopardy! in England has an interesting twist where the contestants never see each others scores, so wagering on Daily Doubles and Final Jeopardy! is more strategic. Even Wheel of Fortune in France has a shopping wedge that allows contestants $2000 to spend in a vintage Wheel shopping/Price is Right minigame. But the best change that any foreign show has made, by far, is The Price is Right in Australia. Their Showcase round looks like this:

Instead of the final two contestants bidding on their own showcases, they go head to head trying to figure the price of ONE showcase. One player guesses the price, and the host says whether the actual price is higher or lower. The other player then goes, and we go back and forth like this until someone hits the price on the nose. Then this huge board rotates on the turntable, and the player must place the prizes in order from lowest to highest. If they do, they win the showcase (and in some variants, a six figure cash prize or a $500,000 condo in prime time). Usually, the game is won or lost on prizes 3, 4 and 5, but if the contestant wants to stop, the host offers a cash bailout if the contestant doesn't feel confident (we've seen these go up to $20,000 in some cases). It's exciting, it's tense, and it is perfect. 

Hey, Fremantle? If you ever decide to syndicate The Price is Right again, use this format for the showcase. It's budget friendly, suspenseful, and allows you to offer a boatload of prizes. Just my 2 cents.

And Here's Your Host...

Let's face it- I've always been a fan of game shows. The excitement of being able to win life changing money in 30 minutes has always been appealing to me. Being a game show host, however, would be awesome. I would want to be a game show host. Giving away a car to somebody who really needs one is an awesome prospect. The best part is that it's not my money. I get to play the part of Santa Claus without donning a red suit....unless of course, I somehow get pixelated and am turned into Buzz, the host of the Buzz! series of quiz games for the Playstation Suite.

Anyways, I've compiled a list of game shows that, if given the chance, I would host.

5: Card Sharks- This game was great because people won and lost tons of money by betting on cards. When I'm in Vegas and playing Blackjack, I'm that guy that verbally roots for the whole table to win. That would translate to Card Sharks well. Plus, the survey questions, for the most part, are thought provoking and can tell you a lot about people in geenral.

4: Body Language- This one isn't known by most people, but it's an old 80s game show hsoted by Tom Kennedy. Basically, you had 60 seconds to play charades and make your partner guess words or phrases. Each one you got right was inserted into this word puzzle, and it was the player's job to guess the puzzle. I've always been a fan of charades, and I alwyas thought this was a great execution of charades on television.

3: Family Feud- From what I've seen of Steve Harvey so far, he's going to be a great host. He actually SAYS what I'm thinking when bad answers are given. I'd be somewhere between him and Dawson as far as hosting styles are concerned. Besides, I get to adlib and interact with 10 people every day- how great is that?

2: The Price is Right- Drew Carey was spot on when he said that the show is like a little bit of church. People come to have a good time, and there's a party atmosphere throughout the whole episode. The bevy of games means that there's never the same comination played twice (well, at least not that often), and every 18 seconds a bell of some kind is going off. Bells mean winners. Winners mean happy people. Happy people means an awesome show. Besides, I figure I'll be near the target age of the new host when Drew retires in about 20 years.

1: The $25,000 Pyramid- Most people who know me would say Jeopardy!, but no, this is it right here. I'm good at Pyramid, and I can pull the "Dick Clark Is Better Than You" (i.e. after the Winner Circle is over, in many cases, Dick Clark knew the perfect clue to give the contestant to get them to the right answer...and in the process made the celebrities look like crap) better than most. Again, I'm into games that can be played in a living room, just as they can be played in a studio.

Honorable mention:
Scrabble: Great game, and Chuck Woolery was awesome, hands down. To me, it's as good a word game as Wheel of Fortune.

$ale of the Century: Another Reg Grundy creation, but with Jim Perry at the helm. He really shone in Instant Bargains, and the fast paced buzzer battle really does appeal to the College Bowl player in me.

Wheel Of Fortune: If the show were ever to get back to the atmosphere or feeling of the Chuck Woolery or mid 80s Pat Sajak days, It'd probably make my Top 5, but too many gimmicks and an uninspired set turn me off from hosting it. Considering it's #1 in syndication and has been for years, I guess I can't say anything.

Jeopardy!: Alex Trebek and Art Fleming are in a category of their own. How they are able to rattle off 61 clues an episode without missing a beat is beyond me. However, that's not the reason I can't host Jeopardy- I need a show that lets me be flexible in being me- Alex can adlib and whatnot during contestant interviews, but for the most part, he has to stay the course and finish as many clues as possible. Love the show, but hosting might grate on me after a while. That's not saying I wouldn't give it a try, though.