2011 Final Four

The Final 4 is set. The Elite 8 games were all pretty fantastic. Now if VCU played Kansas again, I think KU would crush them but it's a 1 & done format. Not sure why Arizona rushed 2 3-pointers when a 2 could've tied it but whatever. I never got out of intramurals so who am I to judge.

Anyway, I've been watching ESPN2 this morning & all the talking heads are crying about how bad the tournament is going. They're saying, I'm paraphrasing mind you, "we've gotta change the system!" and "the best teams aren't in the championship!" Now a few weeks ago these same people were all about "the little guy." "Why should the Big East get 11 teams at the expense of the mid majors?" was the sentiment after selection Sunday. Now these guys turned on the mid majors.

On Mike & Mike they were saying that in college football, usually, the 2 of the best teams are playing for the title. But in basketball, the best teams aren't playing. One person even sent an email that said something towards dynamiting the current system because the best teams all got knocked off. Admittedly, I don't recall any of this kind of talk when Butler met Duke last year. I'm positive though that no one was crying about the new tournament set-up in 1985, when 1st expanded to 64 teams,  when Villanova made the Final 4. In 1985 2 of the best teams, Georgetown & St John's made the Final 4. In 1985, you can argue that Villanova was a talented team that underachieved to a 19-10 record entering the tournament. What can't be argued that Georgetown was a juggernaut if there ever was one.  But that's enough about 1985.

The fact that there are people who want to change the NCAA Basketball Tournament is insane. There will always be teams that may or may not deserve to get in & there will always be underachieving teams, hello Pitt & Notre Dame. Why change it? There was a time when only conference tournament winners went to the tournament. In 1974, the eventual champion NC State Wolfpack defeated Maryland in the ACC Tournament, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_ACC_Men%27s_Basketball_Tournament. Maryland was one of the best teams in the nation & were denied a chance to play for the title.

Today, that team gets in. If a top ranked team gets bumped off then too bad. Every coach, player & institution knows what they're getting into with the tournament. All of them would tell you that they want a chance to play for the title. They don't want a computer to determine who plays, they want to settle it on the court. In 1981, St Joe's knocked off #1 ranked DePaul in the 1st round. Indiana ended up defeating UNC for the title. That's not a bad game. If Houston could hit a free throw in the closing minutes of the 1983 final then they would have defeated NC State.  Even when the best teams make it to the final it's not always a great game. Case in point the 30 point drubbing UNLV gave Duke in 1990 (Duke would get the vengeance in the 1991 semi-final game.)

The tournament is fine the way it is. The 4 teams playing play-in games is up for debate but we all know that it's the 64 team set that makes it. Granted the Big East sending 11 teams is a bit much I agree but the Big East is a 37 team conference so the mediocre teams may get it.

This is something that got me this morning. It was put together quickly, so please forgive the heinous grammatical errors & such. Everybody looks forward to this time of year & drastic changes are not the answer. There are a lot of problems in college athletics but the NCAA Basketball Tournament isn't one of them.

Thanks for your time.

Possible remakes...be advised or beware!

My sister sent me this link a while ago, http://flavorwire.com/159773/10-movie-remakes-were-actually-looking-forward-to/10. Check it out for yourselves. A lot of these titles would garner my interest more if they stay true to the original. Reboots can be 50/50 so be advised.  Here are my thoughts:

1. All Quiet on the Western Front: This is a title that could do well from a modern update. Although most people who were around for WWI are either really old or deceased. So a bit of history may not be a bad idea.  My interest would be piqued either way so I'd take this title for a spin.

2. Mad Max:  According to the article this title could be a reboot or even a sequel. To me that spells doom. Thunderdome was bad. Most people, myself included, didn't event know there was a Mad Max until after they saw Road Warrior. There are a lot of factors that need to be resolved in order for me to give up $20 or more. Tom Hardy is a good actor & that makes it a possibility. My interest is lukewarm at best until more details get confirmed.

3. Heavy Metal: A remake of an early 80's animated film of short stories based on the cult adult comic/magazine? Why? I remember the Heavy Metal magazine as a 10-13 y/o, to be honest, mostly for the nude drawings. I also remember that the stories were pretty fair out. Mostly sci-fi or fantasy. I would end up seeing the film on VHS years later & didn't much care for it. If they remade it, I wouldn't spend my money.

4. My Fair Lady: The original is a 47 year old musical. Since it is a musical I have no interest unless someone recommends it. So this would be no interest for me.

5. The Birds: A remake of a great Hitchock film with Naomi Watts! I'm in. Unless reviews for this were bad I would see it. High interest.

6. Escape from New York: This is a tough call. The original is a CLASSIC! Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasance, Dean Stockwell, Adrianne Borbeau & Issac Hayes. That was an all-star cast & their characters were awesome! I would need to get more info about this one before making a commitment but I would say that there is mild curiosity.

7. The Phantom Tollbooth: This is another film that's over 30 years old that if not mistaken, combines live action with animation. This is a kids film so I would pass on any remake but if buzz was good then I'd consider.

8. Robocop: I can't say that I'd have a lot of any interest in seeing this be remade. A lot of factors would have to come together. The original was a cool film.

9. Fletch: I never read any of the books but I remember seeing this film in 1985 after getting back from a class trip to Action Park, which was a disaster! I still quote Fletch dialogue to this day (and have been doing so on a regular basis for 26 years!) The prospect of this title being remade scares me. I hope it doesn't happen. The same sentiment would go for any remake of Animal House or Blues Brothers.

10. The Fly: The 1958 original was a bit campy. Cronenberg's 1986 reboot was a really cool film. Honestly, I'm 33.3/66.7 on a remake. Really don't care but if there's a good director, good cast & some good buzz, then I would probably see it.

Who knows what would happen with these titles. There was a 1994 version of the Fantastic Four that is absolutely horrible but was made for legal purposes because the production company needed to make the film version to hold onto the rights to the FF franchise or something to that effect. It allegedly took 10 years to get Spider-Man to the big screen. So there could be a long wait.

Today in History (this is not made up)...

On March 16,1995 the State of Mississippi House of Representatives formally abolishes slavery & ratifies the 13th Amendment.

Hooray Mississippi! To think it only took 130 years after the Civil War. I can understand there being resentment leading to a delay, not to mention the rebuilding process but 130 years? Were the state reps hoping the Amendment would be repealed after Lincoln's assassination? Were they thinking that the Confederacy could take the Union in a rematch? In the 21st century it seems inconceivable to me but this happened.

To be fair, it took Delaware until 1901 to ratify the 13th Amendment . Delaware was a slave state that voted not to secede in January of 1861. According to Wikipedia, Delaware citizens fought on the side of the Union but there were some citizens who fought on the side of the Confederacy. Way to hedge your bets Delaware! Be advised, Delaware voted against the Reconstruction as well. Kentucky finally ratified on March 18, 1976. I can only guess that the state reps felt that 111 years of useless defiance was enough & the rematch wasn't going to happen.

Now to this day there are those people who still cling to the myth that the Civil War was about State's rights. It's time to put this myth to bed. The main issue of the Civil War was slavery. Yes there were other issues but slavery was the big bugaboo. If you still feel that slavery wasn't the main issue, check out James Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me where he lists the arguments against the "states rights" myth.

As I stated earlier, this seems inconceivably ridiculous that this is possible living in the 21st century but sadly, it's true. A part of me almost wishes to be able to see the footage, if there is any, of that day in the Mississippi assembly. Was it a heated debate? Was the vote unanimous? If not then who voted against it? I mean it was 130 years after the fact! The people in the vote that day were at least 2 generations removed from the Civil War. Of course Mississippi is the state that had a plantation owner as it's mascot at the University of Mississippi until a few years ago. It seems that old customs die very hard in Mississippi.

Then again there are a lot of other silly things that have to do with the Civil War, the continued use of the Confederate flag is another issue for another day.

I just wanted to bring this to people's attention & as always thanks for your time.

the world where we live

I recently came across this, http://www.businessinsider.com/lawrence-odonnell-newt-gingrich-video-2011-3.

Now, I didn't know this happened but I find it very interesting. I'm gonna put this in religious terms since Mr. Gingrich went on Pat Robertson to address this. So while old Newt was casting the 1st & several stones, trying to impeach him mind you & spending millions of taxpayer money, at Bill Clinton for having sex with someone who wasn't his wife. Newt was NOT without sin as we were led to believe during his "crusade" against the President. It was his "passion for America" that led him to go after Clinton with such veracity while he himself was "diddling" a woman who was not his wife. A wife who had cancer mind you! What a guy!

Now Newt wants to run for President in 2012. Sorry but how can you trust a confessed hypocrite? Granted, if you're like me & you feel that most, if not all, politicians are hypocrites anyway. You may say "what's the big deal?" Well for starters would you want a man who has such little compassion for his cancer-stricken wife that he would go out chasing skirts while she's at home or the hospital puking her guts out? There's a guy I want to hang out with! Newt was telling how to live our lives & judging those who weren't living up to those standards all the while holding himself above the law! That's what I can't buy. I hope he loses in the primary BIG TIME! I want to see the alleged liberal media bring it up non-stop. In my humble, probably not really even wanted, opinion...he can't be trusted. Because he asked God for forgiveness it's ok? Once a hypocrite always a hypocrite. Tigers don't change their stripes or however that cliche goes.

That's why I can't buy Palin as a realistic candidate. You can't shout about "family values" when your own child is off having pre-marital sex that produces an out of wedlock child then do everything possible to keep the babies father out of the picture. It's similar to the 2002 film Traffic where Michael Douglas' character, the US Drug Czar, has a daughter who's an addict, unbeknownst to him, right under his nose. He wasn't paying attention to a problem in his own house. Much like Palin. Politicians shouldn't have it both ways.

Be advised...I'm neither republican nor democrat. I think both parties exist only to serve their own interests. I'm also not religious. I just don't like hypocritical politicians. I don't know who Lawrence O'Donnell is & I think he's just another talking head justifiably making fun of a public figure, who wants to be President, who so clearly deserves. If MSNBC has an agenda so be it. I don't subscribe to it. Whatever it may be.

Thanks for your time.