Why (a lot of) People Hate Duke

Something about major sporting events makes me just wanna blog. The final four has proved to be no exception. It's been a thrilling tournament, thanks largely to a lack of elite teams. You all know what's happened by now; there's been a ton of upsets and nothing is to be taken for granted in this tourney. Only one #1 seed it to this year's final four, and it was the 1 seed that I least expected: Duke. Granted, Duke had by far the easiest of the four brackets. But still, I watched Duke this play this year and didn't think they were elite (let's face it, when BC comes within inches of beating you, it's tough to be considered all that great). Regardless, the Dukies are in the final four, yet again, and that gets a lot of people fired up. But why?

A couple nights ago, I was having dinner with my parents and aunt and uncle, and we began talking sports and inevitably about march madness. My uncle is a guy who is not afraid to speak his mind and though I may not always agree with his opinions, I really respect his honesty. When asked who he'd be rooting for in the final four, he said very matter-of-fact, "Duke, because they have a lot of white kids." Bingo. Year after year, Duke has a sizable number of white kids. I actually have a theory that eventually the entire team will be white. I think that it's understood now, that if you're one of the best high school basketball players and you're white, you go to Duke (or at least strongly consider it).

Most people tend to associate with people who look like them. There's nothing wrong with that. So why do you think so many kids growing up tend to like Duke? It's a bunch of guys who look like they do, not like what you'd expect great basketball players to look like. I'm not afraid to admit that I liked Duke when I was a kid. Shane Battier was the man. I'm sure I never thought, "I'm gonna like this team because they're a bunch of white guys," but that subconsciously may have made them more attractive to me.

So with all of these fans across the nation, of course Duke games are going to be on TV a lot. They get a ton of attention from the media. Now add in the fact that Duke is a great school, the players don't seem to get in a lot of trouble off the court, they are a great team year after year, and you're going to get a program that is adored by the media. The media's love for Duke is obnoxious (does Dick Vitale come to mind?). I completely understand hating a team because of the media's love affair with them (without the media I wonder how I would feel about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Cleveland Lebrons).

I hate listening to sports analysts and even fans talk about why people feel so strongly about Duke (it came up earlier this week on The Herd). People always use the words "entitled," "elitist," and "class" to describe Duke. Why not just come out and say it? Their players are WHITE. When watching a game, of course a white kid complaining to the ref is going to look like a lot more of a cry baby than a black kid who does the same thing. Guys on Duke just don't come off as being as tough and intimidating as their opponents, I wonder why that is.

For an example, let's turn to a team that is all too close to my heart: the New York Mets. The Mets had two young prospects a couple of years ago with great potential. Both of these guys were projected to be great major league players, one at shortstop and one at third base. Their names: Jose Reyes and David Wright. I'll be willing to bet all kinds of money that Wright sold more jerseys and t-shirts than Reyes. And Reyes is one hell of a player, one of the fastest I've ever seen. But who became the face of the team? Wright. And this is in New York, maybe the most diverse city in the world.

It's time to be honest, there's a small element of racism in people that's never going to go away. As I said earlier, people are more comfortable with other people that look like they do, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just human instinct. That's why I love the Olympics and World Cup. Finally, events where you can root for the guys who are more like you without feeling guilty!

It's the racial make up of the team, combined with the media's love affair that make people either love or hate Duke. I'll be rooting for West Virginia on Saturday, but that's because a WVU win can make me a winner in my bracket pool. If I was out, I'm not sure who I'd be rooting for. As someone who can see both sides of the coin, I'm indifferent toward Duke. You have to respect their program, but guys like Dickie V do make them pretty damn tough to root for.

Super Bowl XLIV Pregame Thoughts

Just hours before the kickoff of Super Bowl 44, I wanted to get in a couple thoughts I've had about this Super Bowl matchup and the NFL season as a whole. There have been a couple trends in the NFL that are definitely worth noting.

You wanna win? Better have a great QB. The two best QBs in the league this year, Manning and Brees, appropriately meet in the biggest game of the year. There's no Trent Dilfers, Mark Rypiens or Jeff Hostetlers in this game (just to name 3 of the most forgettable to actually win it). The league is all about high flying offenses and quarterbacks are running the show. The running backs are just not as important as they once were. The two best QBs in the league are in the Super Bowl. The best RB in the league, Chris Johnson, not even in the playoffs. I think the whole notion of a guy being a great quarterback but never being able to win a Super Bowl, like Dan Marino or Archie Manning, is a thing of the past. Meanwhile, it used to be that a team could rely on their running game and defense all the way to the top. Take the 1991 NY Giants for example. Franchise QB and future Hall of Famer, Phil Simms went down at the very beginning of the year with a season ending injury. In came Jeff Hostetler, a relatively unknown back-up at the time. The Giants relied on their running game and defense (plus a Scott Nor-wide missed FG) to win Super Bowl XXV. It's almost impossible to imagine this happening in today's game. Last year, after an 18-1 season (you thought a Giants fan was gonna miss a chance to bring that up?), Patriot QB Tom Brady went down for the year in week 1. They brought in Matt Cassel who played pretty well, at least well enough to land him a starting job in KC. What happened? They missed the playoffs. If you want to win in this league, you need to have a great quarterback. We'll get to see two of the best in action tonight.

What happened to all the great coaches? Tonight's coaching matchup: Sean Payton vs Jim Caldwell. I think I may be a little harsh on Payton because he's still a fairly young guy (though he has won coach of the year before), but neither of these guys seem like elite coaches to me. Where are the Bill Parcells and Belichicks now? The guys that you fear game-planning against. To the average fan, it seems like Manning is running the show in Indy with Caldwell just standing on the sidelines to make sure nothing goes wrong. Plus, I absolutely hate his decision to bench Manning against the Jets in week 16. The entire postseason this year didn't feature too many great coaches. Wade Phillips, Norv Turner, Brad Childress...stop me when I name a guy who you would want coaching your team in the postseason. The one coach who really broke on to the scene this postseason was Rex Ryan. We'll see what the future has in store for him. As for tonight, it should be interesting to hear how many times the CBS announcers even mention Caldwell and Payton. Manning and Brees are the real headliners of this game.

Saints are the party boys, Colts are the nerds. (apologies to Colin Cowherd, I am stealing a couple of his ideas from The Herd) The New Orleans Saints are like a big party. They are very tough, high flying, all over the place. The point is, they're fun to watch. I like to discuss "hero franchises" and "villain franchises." I think the Saints have emerged as a hero franchise, especially since Hurricane Katrina. America does feel for New Orleans since 2004. They're a likeable team that's really fun to watch.
Rooting for the Colts is like rooting for your class valedictorian. The guy studies hard, has the natural ability, and does well on tests. You're probably not going to find this guy at a party throwin' em back on a Saturday night, but the guy prides himself on what he does, and that's being the smartest kid in your class. The Colts, like the valedictorian, never find themselves unprepared for any kind of test or challenge that they face. They're not exactly fun to be around, but they get the job done when it counts.

The Saints' dirty defensive play has rubbed me the wrong way. With all of that said, I thought I'd find myself pulling hardcore for the Saints. But their defensive play throughout the playoffs has left me pretty angry. Their defensive gameplan has been so obviously dirty. The hit that ended Kurt Warner's year, and arguably his career, was so obviously malitious (watch it). I don't care what Moose Johnston is saying there, did they really think Kurt Warner was going to make that tackle? That hit was made with the intention of taking him out of the game. The Saints were even dirtier against Brett Favre. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Favre suffer a career-ending broken neck. But the way the Saints handled him was really unprofessional. He got rocked after throwing the ball on almost every play in the NFC championship game. They were clearly going after his knees, which is really dirty for a QB, especially a guy his age. I went into the game looking forward to seeing Favre get rocked, but the way the Saints did it, clearly with the intent to injure, was not cool in my book. The way they've treated the two QBs they've faced this postseason reminded me of Darcy Tucker against the Islanders in the 2002 playoffs (hard to believe that Islanders have even been to the postseason that recently).

Again, don't listen to the Canadian announcers. That was a dirty hit. That his was no where near the play. Tucker went out there with the intent of injuring the Islanders captain and unfortunately he did not suffer any reprocussions.

Who am I rooting for? I'm not particularly invested either way in this game, but I'm still pulling for the Saints. Their dirty defensive gameplan is unadmirable, but I'm still pulling for them over the Colts. What Indy did to their fans in week 16 was a disgrace. It was a middle finger to the face of all the Colts fans who came out to see them play or were watching on tv. As the great Herm Edwards said, "you play to win the game...unless you're the Colts." Pulling Manning from that game, despite saying that he would stay in if it was a competitive game, said "we don't want to win." It was almost as if they said this to their fans. They had a shot at football immortality and decided it was not important to them. Why? Because of the threat of injuries? Injuries can happen in non-contact practices, too. Should teams not practice? How about they just sit around a table and talk about how they're gonna play? Surely no one will get hurt like that! As a fan of the NFL (and a guy who lost his fantasy football championship because of it), the decision to bench the starters disgusts me. So with that said, let's go Saints.

Hopefully, we'll get some great ads, maybe Danica Patrick will continue to take off her clothes for GoDaddy.com again (yeah she'll be a "great success" in NASCAR). I'm not making any predictions for the game itself, but I think it will be pretty exciting. It's going to be a close game. Get your bean dip ready, it should be a good one.

Daft Punk and Wagner May Have More In Common Than You'd Think

I love finding redeeming qualities in popular music. Most of it is such trash, that I am extremely encouraged when I find what I consider to be a great pop song. Recently I stumbled across one, completely not expecting it. Over winter break, I found myself driving in my car, alone, listening to the Daft Punk that I added to my iPod. I know Daft Punk is a pretty popular group, definitely trendy, and I respect their music. I think it takes a lot of talent to do what they do. But I always thought of it as fairly mindless dance music. People aren't really listening to the music for meaning; it functions more as background music.


However, then Digital Love came on. At first I thought, "ok, this is a nice little love song," but as the song progressed, I found myself becoming more and more upset by it. The lyrics start out fairly happy as the narrator describes a romance he has in a dream. But, "before I knew it, the dream was all gone." He then goes on to sing about how he wants to make the dream come true. Sad, but not exactly heartbreaking. It's not like Daft Punk is the first group to ever write a sad love song. As an amateur singer/songwriter, I can tell you, I've written a number of sad love songs, and none of them are all that powerful. As the song continued, I found myself very captivated by it. It left me feeling very tense. Before I break down why I found the song to be so powerful, listen to the song for yourself.





Good stuff. In the past week or two, I've asked a number of people if they've heard the song, and if so, what they thought about it. A number of people have said they like the tune, though they couldn't explain why, and I even got one person who said it's fairly generic and mediocre. So I, with the help of a couple of my roommates, decided to analyze the song and break down why it left me feeling the way it did from a musical standpoint.


After listening to it again, in depth, I realized something that I couldn't believe I hadn't noticed before. The main theme never resolves to the I chord! To the non-musicians, what this means it that it never goes to the chord that you, as a listener, want it to. Pretty much every simple tune you can think of ends on the tonic (I chord). Of course never resolving to the tonic is going to leave the listener very tense! Listening to a 5 minute song and never getting the resolution that your ear is waiting for, leaves you very anxious.


So, why Wagner? Richard Wagner (pronounced vog-ner) was a 19th century German composer who is widely considered to be one of the greatest composers of the Romantic era. I bring him up because he uses a similar, virtually the same, technique in his 1865 opera Tristan und Isolde. It is hailed as one of the greatest operas ever written and according to Wikipedia, "Many see Tristan as the beginning of the move away from conventional harmony and tonality and consider that it lays the groundwork for the direction of classical musical in the 20th century." In other words, the harmony was really groundbreaking and really weird. Coming from someone who took a course on 20th Century Classical Music, I can tell you that it got pretty out there in the 20th century.


What makes Tristan so strange/powerful? For almost the entire duration of the opera, just under 5 hours, it doesn't resolve to the I chord! At the climax of the piece, the very end, it finally resolves to the I chord, and it is said to be an unbelievably powerful experience. Just imagine as a listener, there's something that you want so badly, and are repeatedly being denied it. It leaves you tense and frustrated. And after almost five hours, you are finally rewarded with a triumphant I chord. It's extremely powerful.


Digital Love never resolves to the I chord. In fact, the way the song begins and ends is also brilliant. It opens with a synth suspended chord slowly fading in; not exactly dissonant, but unresolved. The song ends with the same synth chord. In essence, the symmetry of the identical beginning and end shows that the song hasn't really gone anywhere. The listener has ended up right back where they started. And this fits in perfectly with the theme of the song: an experience that turned out to be a dream and unreal. Nothing actually happened.


There are so many other great qualities about the song, as well. The "why don't you play the game?" vocal line, which is then mimiced by the synthesizer, is haunting. The whole song has a dreamlike quality to it too, which is a credit to the synth sounds being used, especially the synthesized vocals. But the lack of resolution is brilliant. It perfectly captures the emotion of the song.


So the next time you're listening to a popular song, don't be so quick to write it off as mindless. The techniques of great classical composers pop up every now and then in today's popular music. I knew that Daft Punk had talent just from listening to their live recordings. But they wildly exceeded my expectations with Digital Love. Every once in a while, a great popular song just may take you by surprise.

Why College Football Refs May Have a Not-So-Secret Agenda

After watching a lot of college football this year, and complaining about a lot of bad calls, I began to notice a trend. The big teams were not losing close games in conference. Just seeing the results on paper, a casual fan may think, "that makes sense, the best teams know how to win the close games." Sure they do, especially with the help of the officials. At this point, this is no more than a theory, but I'm just letting you know. If this does come out as the truth down the road, you can say you heard it here first.

Here's my theory: the referees are helping teams (especially undefeated teams) win against smaller in-conference opponents. Here's why: a conference has a lot to gain by having an elite team. As much as I hate to admit it as an ACC fan, parity is not good for a conference. If a conference sends a team to the national championship game, or multiple BCS games, as the Big 10 and SEC did (remember Big 10), they make a lot more revenue for the big games. And with revenue sharing, the conference splits up this cash. Though slightly outdated, here's a good article that explains it all (I also find it interesting that it comes from Iowa, keep that in mind, too). Here's a quote from Iowa athletic director at the time, Bob Bowlsby, taken from the article that explains it well, "A second Big Ten team involved in a Bowl Championship Series game provides a significant boost to the conference and the member institutions in several ways including additional national recognition of the second team in particular and the league as a whole as a result of the media attention provided by the BCS and the bowl game." Extremely redundant, yes, but the quote is important.

For games in which two teams from the same conference play each other, the game is officiated by conference referees. In short, the refs are employed by the conference, itself. So, if there is a result of that game that is clearly beneficial to the that conference, what is to stop those officials from doing their best to make sure that result happens? Granted, if it's completely obvious, it's going to raise some red flags with the NCAA, but there is nothing preventing officials from making some important, questionable calls that can swing a close game.

The reason why I developed this theory came from watching the Iowa Hawkeyes play during their undefeated run, specifically their Oct. 31 win against Indiana. Though the 42-24 final score looks like a comfortable win, it was anything but for the Hawkeyes. QB Ricky Stanzi threw 5 INTs on the day, 4 in the 3rd quarter, and Iowa trailed by 14 in that same 3rd quarter. Yet, thanks to some very questionable officiating, Iowa cruised along the undefeated road into November. It was at this play specifically, that I began to sense something fishy was going on. A clear Indiana touchdown, one that would have given them a 2 TD lead late in the 3rd, is overturned. Iowa's undefeated run came to an end the next week against Northwestern in a game in which Stanzi was injured early on and Iowa turned the ball over 4 times. Also, the Hawkeyes didn't score any points after Stanzi left in the 2nd quarter; they didn't do enough to win, even with the assistence of referees.

Back at the beginning of the season, Michigan received a gift win over Notre Dame thanks to Big 10 officials. Keep in mind, this game took place in early September, when Michigan fans were thinking that Tate Forcier was the best thing since sliced bread and was going to lead them back to the promised land. Michigan back on top again; the Big 10 must dream about it every night. Also, this is a Big 10 team against a non-Big 10 team, officiated by Big 10 refs. Don't worry, they're definitely going to be impartial. As much as I love to see an irate Charlie Weis on the sidelines, he had some critical comments of the Big 10 refs that I had to agree with.

I'm not accusing Iowa of any wrongdoing, I just think they may have been the benificiaries of a conference desperately seeking redemption in the bowl season with something to prove. The Big 10 did go on to prove a lot of people wrong and have a tremendous bowl season, winning both of their BCS games.

But I think this may be a problem that could be a lot more common in college football than we know about. The SEC got its dream scenario in a conference championship game featuring undefeateds Alabama and Florida. Who's to say that the SEC officials didn't give them some breaks during their seasons, paving the way toward this matchup (which did lead to the 2 teams both making, and winning, BCS bowls)? I'm not saying it happened, but it certainly could have, especially in Alabama's close win over Tennessee and Florida's over Vanderbilt.

However, this theory contrasts greatly with the blatant cheating by the officials in Georgia Tech's win over Virginia Tech. VaTech was undefeated and the #4 team in the nation at the time when the officials picked up a ball that was spotted short of the first down marker, moved it forward, and awarded Georgia Tech the first down (just click on the link to watch the clip). Watching that game, I was dumbfounded. I still am, especially since it goes completely against my theory. Maybe, like everything else that happens in ACC football, it just doesn't make sense.

This may be just a theory, but there is nothing preventing my theory from happening. If it is beneficial to a conference if one team wins a certain game, and the conference employs the refs calling the game, the conference is going to tell the refs to give the breaks to the team they want to win. The only thing keeping this theory from happening is ethics, and as we all learned from the financial disasters of the past decade (take Enron and ponzi schemes), ethics is not an effective enforcer of the rules. Conferences referees are not impartial. Just letting you know, you heard it here first.

Why Pete Carroll Will Have More Success in the NFL This Time Around

Pete Carroll's appointment as the new head coach of the Seattle Seahawks took many avid NFL and NCAA football fans, myself included, by surprise. Carroll seemed to be the perfect fit for the USC head coaching job, and it seemed to be the perfect fit for him as well. Carroll (pictured right, microphone brought to you by bing.com) seemed like a guy who was happy coaching at the college level. There are certain guys who are great college coaches. For example, Steve Spurrier: great coach of the Florida Gators. His tenure with the Washington Redskins was pretty forgettable, which might actually be considered a good thing for a franchise that is looking to forget anything that has happened in the last decade. Spurrier led the 'Skins to a 12-20 record over 2 seasons before resigning and eventually accepting a job back in the good ole' SEC with South Carolina. Some guys seem like they're destined to coach college ball forever and Carroll seemed like one of those guys.

Plus, let's not forget that Carroll did try his luck in the NFL. Unlike Mark McGwire, I am here to talk about the past. I'm guessing those of you who don't remember Carroll in the NFL are not fans of the Jets or Patriots. But I bet more of you do remember the Dan Marino "fake spike" play against the Jets. The Jets were 6-5 going into the game, they were 6-6 after it and 6-10 at the end of the season. Their head coach was, you guessed it, Pete Carroll, and he then was, you got it again, fired at the end of the season. After a couple years as the defensive coordinator in San Francisco, Carroll was hired to succeed Bill Parcells (have you heard of him?) as head coach of the Patriots. Needless to say, Carroll could not fill the Big Tuna's big shoes and was let go after three seasons. His replacement, some other no-name coach: Bill Belichick.

Now, I've always liked Pete Carroll. The guy has a youthful enthusiasm that's rare in big time football coaches. (Did anyone see Nick Saban crack a smile even once after winning the National Championship?) Carroll always seems to be having fun on the sidelines. He and his players always seem to have great relationships; he looks like a kid himself on the sideline. Did you know that he's 58 years old? 58. In a couple years, Carroll could replace Wilford Brimley as the spokesperson for Liberty Medical and I'm sure he'd tell us all about how we can get our "diabeetus testing supplies" with a smile on his face. I would gladly accept a 30 second interruption from The Price Is Right to listen to Pete Carroll talk to me about Liberty Medical.
Now the evidence is on the table. But I'm going to let you know why I think the NFL is going to be much kinder to Pete Carroll this time around.

1. Experience at USC - Carroll did some big things at USC. The Trojans were arguably the team of the decade, winning 2 National Titles and going to 7 straight BCS bowl games. They did this all running a pro style offense. This was no Georgia Tech triple option. There's a reason why the USC quarterback is a high draft pick almost every year (Palmer, Leinart, Sanchez). It's like dating. Pete had some hot girlfirends back in the day, in the Jets and Pats, but he made some mistakes and they didn't work out. Now, after hanging out at bars and internet dating sites, Pete found a serious partner in USC. He became a more mature man with USC, learned from his mistakes, and is now ready to move on. Carroll's 9 years at USC have made him more prepared to run a professional team than he was back when he ran the Jets and Patriots.

2. He's a west coast guy - No one ever said New York and New England are easy places to coach. Carroll was born and raised in San Francisco, went to school at Pacific and has had his best years on the west coast. I understand that Seattle is different from SoCal (a simple look outside could tell you that), but not nearly as different as New York or Boston. Carroll will definitely be more comfortable in Seattle than he was in his previous NFL run. I'm struggling to support this reason; much like when a scout says that a player has "intangibles." Regardless, I see the town as a good fit.

3. NFC West - The Seahawks are in maybe the weakest division in the NFL. You get to play the Rams, the worst team in the league, twice. The other two teams in the division are San Fran (a team that's on the way up but still mediocre) and Arizona (a good playoff team but rarely too scary in the regular season, especially with the possible retirement of Warner). At this point, the NFC West is almost like if the SEC was a college hockey conference. Though I don't see Seattle winning the division, they have a chance to win against all three of these teams.

4. Expectations - The Seahawks are a struggling franchise right now. They are in no hurry to return to the Super Bowl. As much as I want to support Boston College's own Matt Hasselbeck, the guy hasn't been getting it done in Seattle. Neither has wide-out TJ Houshmanzadeh (by the way, thanks for the tip that this was going to be your "break-out" season, Housh. 6th round fantasy pick wasted on you, you bum). Plus, since Shaun Alexander went from MVP to out of the league seemingly overnight, the Seahawks haven't found a running back they can depend on. This may sound like Carroll doesn't have the tools for success, but I argue that it is a positive because people are not expecting success in the short term.

At first, I was taken aback by Carroll's decision to coach at Seattle. I thought, he gave the NFL a shot and it didn't work out, why try it again? Now, I'm thinking that this could be a great move for Pete Carroll. I'm not saying that the Seahawks are going to turn it around and start winning games, but I do think that the tools are in place and Carroll has a much greater chance for success in the NFL this time around.

Things I Came To Love and Hate in 2009

Music:

John Legend - This is an easy one for me. John Legend was my musical obsession for 2009. I consider this guy to be the next great hope for popular music. He just puts together a perfect blend of hip-hop, R&B, soul, funk, and even rap on a couple songs. There’s a reason why so many big time rappers keep coming to John Legend to collaborate. I also got to see him live in ’09 and he didn’t disappoint. Please John Legend, keep making more great music in the next decade.

Honorable mention: Jay-Z, Brecker Brothers

Lady Gaga - I can’t say I hated too many musical artists this past year but I guess if I had to pick one it would be Lady Gaga. Unfortunately I think Lady Gaga is brilliant. She knows exactly what the music industry wants and she gives it to all of us. She is a fairly talented musician but she knows that what the majority wants to hear is crap. So she turns out garbage but couples it with weird outfits and nonsensical music videos so people think it’s “artistic.” Her videos have nothing to do with the content of the songs and they are weird for the sake of being weird. She goes out and plays a freak at the VMAs just to turn heads. But it works, and this may be what bothers me the most.

Honorable mention: System of a Down

Television:

The Office – I don’t watch too many current TV shows. I rely mostly on reruns (which is why I consider TBS replacing Seinfeld with My Name Is Earl to be one of the dumbest moves of the year). But, The Office may be my one exception. This show is hilarious. The characters are brilliant, all so different. No one character makes the show. Great cast, great writing, great show.

Honorable mention: 30 Rock, The Herd (I know it’s a radio show but I watch it on TV and it’s too good to omit)

Robot Chicken – Apologies to Mike Cote, but I have to do this. I have been forced into watching this show for months and have cracked a smile maybe once, and it was during the Star Wars episode (I’m a sucker for Admiral Ackbar “It’s a Trap” jokes). I become physically uncomfortable watching this show, it’s that bad. Let’s have action figures act as characters from pop culture, but then they’ll swear and kill each other in graphic ways. Hilarious? The fact that people watch this show blows my mind.

Honorable mention: Tyler Perry’s House of Payne, Meet the Browns (seriously…do people watch those shows?)

Video Games:

Mario Kart Wii – Get four guys together, a game of Mario Kart and you have a great night. I said once between races, “this really may be the best game ever made.” I stand by that. When you have four guys sitting around a screen and screaming vulgarities at each other frantically, that is a great game. I consider winning a race at Rainbow Road to be one of the greatest achievements of my life. The intensity is phenomenal and it’s also so much fun.

Honorable mention: Madden 10, Winning Eleven

NHL 10 – The problem with NHL 10, is that I really do love it. But I hate playing it, because if you lose, you want to go jump off a bridge. It’s one of those games where you really don’t want to play, but you have to. Also, it’s extremely unrealistic. Spoiler alert: the only way to score is by feeding a one-timer to the guy in the slot. The CPU defender will always mysteriously move away from the attacker in the slot. Plus, you can’t trip someone from in front of them. But this game is still too addictive.

Film:

The Jerk – Before ’09, I had never seen this movie and after seeing it once it became one of my all-time favorites. I think I consistently laughed throughout the whole movie. Steve Martin is unreal hilarious. Shithead the dog is also phenomenal. I love Navin’s letters home; they always end with something completely ridiculous. Like “PS: Patty promised me a blow job next week” or “I have to go now as someone is staring at me through binoculars.”

Honorable mention: Just Friends (it may be a chick flick but what a great movie)

Gangs of New York – I didn’t see any movies that I hated this year so I figured I’d go back to an old favorite. This movie sucked and I’m not gonna be made to think otherwise. Seriously, if you’re gonna speak with an Irish accent, at least keep it up for the whole movie.

Sports:

Kyle Orton – Those of you who know me know that I’ve been a Kyle Orton fan since his days at Purdue. But I was always kind of joking when I said how great he was. Now I’m serious, I think he’s great. His year with the Broncos, a team expected to be terrible, has proved that he is a valuable QB. The guy just wins games.

Honorable mention: Alexandre Pato, Mark Herzlich, 2009 Barcelona FC

2009 New York Yankees – Probably my most hated team since the 2003 Yankees and 2000 Baltimore Ravens. The entire postseason you just knew that the Yankees were going to win it all, but you had to sit and endure it. It was a painful experience, thankfully now it’s over.

Honorable mention: Brett Favre, Wade Redden, Michael Rosival, Matt Gilroy, Didier Drogba

That’s it, my 2009 in review. Let me know if I missed anything or if you disagree with what I’ve said (but seriously, no one is going to convince me that Robot Chicken or Gangs of New York are good).