The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part VIII of VIII

THE WRAP-UP

Why yes, I did happen to catch the Academy Awards last night- how'd you guess? Here are my random thoughts on the ceremony:

* Chris Rock was a good as we could have hoped for. He added excitement, he never got flustered and most importantly, he told edgy jokes that were also very funny. I'm really glad that he stuck to stand-up (what he does best) and didn't go for any cheesy song-and-dances or try to pull off any moments of sappiness or even earnestness. I've heard some comments today that Rock was tame, but there was no way he was gonna rip into the superstars sitting in the front row.

* That Magic Johnson Theaters sketch... so funny, yet so sad for my black people. Was that lady serious about Alien vs. Predator being her favorite movie of the year? But then again, if you went to a theater in a low-income area of Nebraska, you'd get the same answers.

* The producers' efforts to speed up the show were awkward, even though they were effective. I didn't mind the scenario where the nominees are all on stage, but I disagree with the practice of delivering the awards to nominees in their seats. If you win an Oscar, you deserve the opportunity to give your speech on stage. You shouldn't have to stand in the middle of the crowd with half the audience craning their next to try to see you.

* If they want to save time for next year, I have a simple suggestion: eliminate the Best Song performances. That category has gotten so watered down over the years that nobody even recognizes any of the songs. I guarantee that nobody would miss those 20 cumulative minutes of the ceremony.

* Who knew that rappers would be the only ones to live up to my request for bowties on the red carpet? Jigga and Diddy, keepin' it formal for the streets.

* Were my father and I the only ones who noticed that there was a sleeping audience member during the ceremony? During one of the crowd reaction shots, there was a bald black man- who looked very much like Louis Gossett, Jr.- asleep in the background. I've looked and I've looked but nobody has picked up on this story.

* Today on Pardon the Interruption, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon alerted us to a huge scandal-to-be from last night: John Travolta's mysteriously potent hair. Last Thursday, Travolta had short-cropped hair while appearing on Letterman. Then just three nights later, he shows up at the Oscars with a significantly longer, slicked-back coif. Finally, Travolta has been exposed as the wig-wearing con artist that he is.

* It sounds weird to say it, but I feel so gratified about Jamie Foxx's win last night. Maybe it's because I've been following his career since In Living Color and his stand up specials. (Speaking of which, isn't it about time we recognize that stand-ups have the ability to become no just serviceable, but great dramatic actors? Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, Jim Carrey and now Foxx have all proved it.) In his film roles, we could see Foxx progress through great performances from Any Given Sunday to Ali to Collateral- is it any wonder that he would knock it out of the park in Ray?

* That said, let's hope Jamie's Oscar glow lasts for a while. Stealth, his next movie, looks god-awful based on this trailer.

* When Dustin Hoffman slurred his way through his Best Picture presentation I actually thought to myself "I don't remember hearing that Dustin Hoffman had a stroke." But then I realized, "oh wait, he's just bombed out of his mind." Was it really that hard to stay sober until the after-party?

* Overall, I'm pretty happy with my slate of predictions from this past week. All the favorites won in the acting categories and I should have known better than to try for the upset pick with Virginia Madsen. As for Scorsese, I wish I had listened to myself: Hollywood has NO sympathy for serial losers.

* As for my Best Picture prediction from a year ago, I was close but no cigar on The Aviator. But last February, Million Dollar Baby wasn't even in pre-production yet so how was I to know? As for Oscar 2006, Cinderella Man is the film to beat. You've got Oscar winners in Ron Howard, Crowe and Zellweger so the pedigree is all there. But then again, it could turn out to be another Cold Mountain.

 
The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part VII of VIII

BEST PICTURE

Before I delve into this category I have to ask why the best film of 2004 wasn't even nominated. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is everything you could ask for in a movie: humor, drama, romance and best of all, intelligence. How many times have you heard audiences and critics complain about the lack of originality in today's movies? So here we have a movie that isn't a sequel, remake, book/TV adaptation or based on historical events. That's right, all of the movie's the characters were created by the screenwriter. It sounds like such a simple feat but none of the five Best Picture nominees can say that.

Eternal Sunshine has a wonderfully inventive concept, but the movie is so great because it's more than just a gimmick. Charlie Kaufman (who I'm rooting for more than any other nominee) creates a rich, honest love story to go along with his premise. The cast is terrific as well, as Jim Carrey has proven that he deserves to sit at Hollywood's grown-ups table. I could see why mass audiences might be turned off by such a layered film, but for academy members who see dozens and dozens of formulaic movies each year, I'm baffled as to why Eternal Sunshine wasn't deemed top a five movie.

As for the actual nominees, it's a breath of fresh air to finally have some uncertainty about the Best Picture prize. We pretty much knew that A Beautiful Mind would win, we were quite sure that Chicago would win and last year it was absolutely set in stone that The Lord of the Rings would win. Unlike the past three years there is no overriding favorite right now as Million Dollar Baby and The Aviator are a toss-up at this point. The former has the momentum but latter has more going for it on paper. The Aviator has more Golden Globe wins, more Oscar nominations (both of which are good predictors) and it "looks" more like a best picture. However, I just don't get the sense that is a beloved film. I think it's the type of picture where an Academy voter might say "I could sleep at night with this as our Best Picture, but I wouldn't mind if something better came along." Well, along came Million Dollar Baby and it is a better film. I predict that the voters will hedge their ballots by giving Scorsese Best Director and then awarding Best Picture to the people's champ.

Should win: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Will win: Million Dollar Baby

 
The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part VI of VIII

BEST DIRECTOR

Based on everything I've read this week, this category comes down to a basic question for most academy voters: Is it ethical to consider Martin Scorsese's complete body of work when voting on this year's award? Most people believe that he should have won his first Best Director Oscar in 1976, when his Taxi Driver lost to the upstart Rocky. But pretty much everyone thinks that he was robbed when he his Raging Bull effort was upset by Robert Redford's Ordinary People in 1981. So Scorsese has been on the wrong side of a boxing movie in a Best Director showdown twice already- how will he fare against Million Dollar Baby?

As I've written before, I don't think Hollywood has much sympathy for serial losers, which is why I picked Hilary Swank to beat Annette Bening. I'm on board with the idea that an Oscar shouldn't be a the equivalent of gold watch retirement gift- to win, you should have to be better than everyone else in your year. To me, Clint Eastwood did the best job in this category, as he told a powerful, emotional story in an intimate way. He also coaxed great peformances out of his actors (himself included) which to me is the measure of a great director.

Alas, I do think that academy voters can't help but look at Scorsese's career when filling out the ballot. The voters will see that he's been snubbed enough and The Aviator is a worthy enough occasion for Scorsese to finally receive his crown. Scorsese also has size on his side. After all, the academy isn't just made up of on-screen talent- the majority of these votes are coming from the editors, visual effects supervisors and sound technicians of the world. Because The Aviator is an epic of the grandest scale, voters will take the scope of the film into account, rewarding its many technical achievements. It's not like they would be giving Scorsese charity on this one- The Aviator is a well-made movie that most people enjoyed. On Sunday, we will finally hear what a Martin Scorsese acceptance speech will sound like.

Should win: Clint Eastwood
Will win: Martin Scorsese

 
The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part V of VIII

BEST ACTOR

What can you say about a race that's such a foregone conclusion? Johnny Depp, Clint Eastwood, Don Cheadle and Leonardo DiCaprio are all fine actors who gave solid performances, but they just picked the wrong year to be nominated. Jamie Foxx was so good in Ray that this award has been a lock for him ever since the movie came out in theaters last October. The Degree of Difficulty factor is off the charts here. Consider:

A) He had to play a celebrity with well-known mannerisms
B) He had to sing and play the piano in many scenes
C) He had very little help from co-stars
D) He had to do everything without showing the audience his eyes

That's what you call an air-tight case. All that's left is to discuss where Foxx ranks among best performances of the last decade. So I'll do just that.

Looking over all of the Best Actor winners since 1994, the only performances that really jump out at me are Kevin Spacey in American Beauty and Sean Penn in Mystic River. Those are the only ones where I really felt that the actor really went above and beyond the level of "Nailed the Part." Not only were you blown away in the theater but you're still thinking about the character three nights after you saw the movie. On that same nominee list were some great performances that didn't end up winning: Ed Norton in American History X, Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan and one of my favorites, Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt. Even with all the Sideways hoopla this year, I'm a little miffed that everyone seems to have forgotten how good Nicholson was in Alexander Payne's previous film.

But some of my favorite lead actors over the past 10 years weren't nominated for an Oscar: Ed Norton in Fight Club, Guy Pearce in L.A. Confidential and Robert DeNiro in Heat. Just indelible performances that get better every time I see them on DVD. So where does Foxx's Ray performance stack up? Here's my top five:

1. Spacey
2. Norton (Fight Club)
3. Foxx
4. Pearce
5. Nicholson

Not bad for a guy who made his name in Booty Call.

Should win: Jamie Foxx
Will win: Jamie Foxx

 
The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part IV of VIII

BEST ACTRESS

Every year I can't help but feel a little depressed whenever I see the nominees in this category. It's always so glaring how few notable performances there are of women in a leading role. That's mainly because there are so few of any performances of women in a leading role these days. It's sad that the academy has to search so far and wide just to come up with five nominees. There are about eight people in this country who have actually seen Vera Drake, Being Julia and Maria Full of Grace. It's very telling that only one of the movies represented in this category, Million Dollar Baby, was produced by a major studio. It's nice that small films are represented at the Oscars, but wouldn't it be even better if studio pictures had better lead actress roles than those offered by The Grudge and Catwoman?

It's a nice little coincidence that Annette Bening and Hilary Swank are set up in a rematch of their Best Actress throwdown in 2000. Back then, the contest was very even, with Bening carrying the advantages of starring in the hot movie (American Beauty) and of being 9 months pregnant (which brings nothing but good will from others). Yet Swank beat her out because her Boys Don't Cry role was just better suited for Oscar. This year, however, the contest isn't nearly as close. Let's face it, Swank owns Bening in this category- she's in her head.

But seriously, you have to first factor out the We-feel-sorry-for-Annette vote. This is an academy that denied Al Pacino an Oscar for 20 years- Hollywood doesn't give losers much help. Anyone who saw Million Dollar Baby knows that Swank is just in a class by herself when it comes to nailing the strong-yet-vulnerable-yet-believable type. I agree with Bill Simmons on this one- there's absolutely no other actress who could have pulled off this role. I'm a big believer that the degree of difficulty should be a major factor when weighing performances. For example, I think it's easy to ugly yourself up for a role and earn instant points for "being brave" (a la Charlize Theron last year). But Swank had to convincingly play a hard-nosed boxer, hold her own against Eastwood and Freeman for two hours and then turn her character completely around in the last third of the movie. That, my friends, is an acting performance.

Should win: Hilary Swank
Will win: Hilary Swank

 
The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part III of VIII

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

This is one category in which I've seen all of the nominees' performances. To begin with Alan Alda, I honestly don't understand why he was nominated. His role in The Aviator couldn't have been more than 20 minutes of screentime, and even though he was the movie's only antagonist, this was by no means a showcase role. It's as if the voters just said "Damn there are only four good candidates this year... screw it, let's just throw in somebody from the Scorsese picture." Thomas Haden Church and Clive Owen both play horny scoundrels in their respective movies and both do good job. But sometimes it's just not possible for an actor to overcome their material. In neither case did I leave the theater saying "Man, that performance was Oscar-worthy!"

I think people are overlooking the fact that Jamie Foxx actually gave two Oscar-caliber lead actor performances last year. Anyone who saw Collateral knows that Foxx played the protagonist, had more screen time and gave a weightier performance than Tom Cruise. In short, he was the lead, not the supporting actor. This is ironic for Cruise because he was in Foxx's shoes back when Rain Man came out. Cruise, not Dustin Hoffman, carried that movie; Rain Man wasn't about an idiot savant- it was about a man learning to care for his idiot savant brother. Cruise was really the lead in that picture, but he too got screwed when his costar got promoted for (and ultimately won in) the Best Actor category. I would say that Cruise was getting his revenge 16 years after the fact, except that he'll be sitting at home Oscar night with nary a nomination.

Since Foxx has basically taken himself out of this race (his camp has focused all promotional arsenal on the Ray nomination), there are really only four candidates. With that in mind, the trophy is Morgan Freeman's to lose. I've already stated for the record how much I liked his performance in Million Dollar Baby, and I haven't wavered a bit in the last month. In past years, Freeman has been hurt by stiff competition, but now that he has a clear path plus the sentimental vote, there's nothing stopping him Sunday night. I predict a standing ovation.

Should win: Morgan Freeman
Will win: Morgan Freeman

 
The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part II of VIII

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Cate Blanchett looks like the favorite in this category, as she's gotten raves for her portrayal of the revered Katherine Hepburn. By all accounts, Blanchett nailed all of Hepburn's inflections and mannerisms. However, when I saw The Aviator, I found Blanchett to be downright irritating. I give her props for accurately playing her character, but I got fed up with the haughty preening in all of her scenes. But I seem to be the only one with this opinion and narcissistic Academy voters will no doubt have extra affection for the fact Blanchett is playing the most legendary of Hollywood stars.

But I don't think that this category is open-and-shut. Traditionally, this has been the hardest of all the acting categories to predict. Over the past 15 years, this award is rife with overachievers who have risen up for one night of triumph only to fade back into oblivion. Looking at that list, Angelina Jolie is the only actress who has gone on to bigger things after winning the Oscar. Mercedes Ruehl, we hardly knew ye.

If the above rule applies, you've got to like Virginia Madsen's chances on Sunday. Here's a veteran actress who's never had any noteworthy parts despite her lengthy resume. But given the role of a lifetime, she knocked it out of the park. Her monologue about the romantic glory of wine was the highlight of the movie, and it's the type of signature scene that can snag an Oscar all by itself. The underdog factor will be just enough to nudge Madsen over the grandstanding Blanchett.

Should win: Virginia Madsen
Will win: Virginia Madsen

 
The Oscar Week Breakdown: Part I of VIII

With the sports world in its February hibernation period (and no, the Pro Bowl and the NBA's Radioshack Shooting Stars competition don't count), W.S.Y.A. will turn its focus on the Academy Awards for the week leading up to next Sunday's ceremony. Each day I'll break down one of the major categories and provide my picks on who should and who will take home the Oscar. Today we'll start with an overview of the event:

THE CEREMONY

When they announced a few months ago that Chris Rock would be hosting the Oscars, I was both incredulous and gleeful. Who knew that the academy would risk its hallowed gravitas by turning the mic over to the star of Pootie Tang? Rock has said in interviews that he won't pull any punches, and I'm expecting his disses to be both scathing and wide-ranging. But given that it is the most important night in Hollywood (and that Chris Rock is now firmly entrenched in a Hollywood film career), I think he'll pick safer targets for his barbs (say, Tara Reid rather than Clint Eastwood).

As for the red carpet hoopla, the Oscars follow a predicatble pattern. Every year, the media comes to a consensus that it's Someone's Night. It was Gwyneth Paltrow's Night in 1999, Julia Roberts's Night in 2001 and Charlize Theron's Night last year. The idea is that attention will turn to one attractive, well-liked actress who is favored to win not only an Oscar but also the crown of Best Dressed on E! Fashion Police. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the actress does just that, and is splashed across the cover of every newspaper the next day. Looking at this year's Lead and Supporting Actress nominees, however, I don't see anyone who quite fits that bill. Hilary Swank is well-respected but she already had Her Night in 2000 and she's not really a movie star (have you ever heard anyone say that they're a "Hilary Swank fan"?). Natalie Portman and Kate Winslet have enough looks and star power, but everyone knows that neither of them have much of a chance to win in their respective categories.

So this means that Sunday will be the rare case when Someone's Night goes to a guy. It's happened before, with Mel Gibson's Braveheart statuette/plaid vest combo in 1996, so there is some precedent. It will be Jamie Foxx's Night this year, as he is the overwhelming favorite in his category, he's well liked by fans and media, and he's a snappy dresser. Speaking of which, I really hope that Foxx or some other prominent young actor sports a bowtie on Sunday. Over the past few years, the tuxedo outfit has seen a phasing out of the bowtie in favor of the funeral-esque black necktie. The tuxedo is the one place where a bowtie doesn't look ridiculous and as a fan of formality, I hate to see the tux being morphed into the same class as business suit. Foxx didn't even bother to wear any tie to last month's Golden Globes. If this trend continues unchecked, guys will start showing up to award ceremonies in nothing more than blazers, khakis and polo shirts. As Ron Burgundy would say, let's stay classy, Hollywood.

 
Put the Playmakers Back in the Game

As I came across the 37th weekly airing of Tilt earlier this evening, I couldn't help but shake my head. I thought back to the fall of 2003, when we were introduced to ESPN's first scripted series, Playmakers. The show had everything- ridiculous plots, frenetic football scenes, salacious women, completely exaggerated characters and over-the-top dialogue. It was impossible to avoid being sucked in by such a guilty pleasure, so naturally it was extremely disheartening when ESPN cowered under pressure from the NFL and cancelled the highly-rated show after 11 episodes.

It's been 15 months since Playmakers left the air, so here's my question: Why in the world hasn't another network ripped this show off? Dozens of cable networks are dying for young male viewership, sports are more popular than ever, and TV writers have squeezed every last drop out of the cop, lawyer and doctor genre. It would make perfect sense for a network like Spike TV, TBS or USA to simply steal the idea (it's not like you can copyright a TV show concept) and make their own version of a behind-the-scenes pro football drama. They could even apply the same formula to baseball or basketball- any sport would do the trick as long as there are drug scandals, lascivious groupies and testosterone-fueled fisticuffs. Heck even NBC could air the show- don't you think the struggling network would love a unique, buzz-worthy, male-skewing show to throw on after Las Vegas on Monday nights? But alas, this idea makes so much sense, there's no way a TV network would go for it.

 
Squeezed Out

Jose Canseco's new book Juiced has, predictably, created a firestorm in the baseball world about how we should view the game's achievements of last 15 years. I'm not a fan of putting asterisks all over the record books or rescinding MVP awards. We don't know exactly who was on steriods so there would be no way to selectively pick and choose which sluggers need their repuations tarnished. Also, don't forget that many pitchers on the juice have been getting a free pass so you'd have to open up that can of worms as well. Furthermore, steroids weren't against the rules until last year, so it would be unfair to retroactively condemn players who were actually playing by the baseball rules. Let's just leave the past numbers alone and not try to re-write history.

The thing that bothers me most about Canseco is the way that he's been calling out Mark McGwire. It's a completely unfair position for McGwire, because he's now in a Salem Witch Trials situation. First of all, he shouldn't have to prove his innocence- the burden of proof must be on the accuser not the alleged culprit. Second of all, there is no way that he could prove his innocence. McGwire deserves better than to be thrown to the wolves by a jealous publicity hound like Canseco.

 
A Format Not To Be Continued

I recently rented a couple of the discs from the recent Seinfeld DVD release. I've seen most of these episodes several times in syndication, but I was surpised at how much I enjoyed watching the early episodes. One show that I had never seen start-to-finish was "The Boyfriend," the two-part episode featuring guest star Keith Hernandez. It was one of the few times the show had used a guest star playing themselves (interestingly enough, most others were also ballplayers like Danny Tartabull and Paul O'Neill) and the scene featuring Kramer, Newman, Hernandez and the "magic loogie" is a classic.

But the show most struck me because of the fact that you almost never see two-part sitcom episodes any more. You do see the occasional season-finale cliffhanger (Friends did this often) but the in-season two-parter is basically extinct. I always remember liking them as a kid, as that "To Be Continued..." message instantly created suspense and gave you something to look forward to the next week. But these days, sitcom production is all about syndication potential, and the two-parter isn't conducive to that. I do think that there is creative potential for the format however, based on the popularity of reality TV. When you think about it, Survivor, The Apprentice and shows of that ilk are just one long string of "To Be Continued..."s and that's what keeps audiences hooked. I guess we'll always have DVD to remind us of the good 'ol days.

 
Mr. Predicto Evaluated

As we begin our way through the post-Super Bowl wasteland that is February, I thought I would take one last look at the past NFL season. Namely, how did I do in my preseason predictions? In the awards section, the only thing I nailed was Peyton Manning winning the MVP (which doesn't make me Nostradamus) and that Aaron Brooks was overrated (but does anyone actually rate him highly?). I was off on Herm Edwards being fired (though his offensive coordinator got canned) but I was egregiously off on Mark Brunell being underrated. Wow, talk about a player who just ran completely out of gas.

As for my playoff predictions, I predicted three of the NFC's playoff teams but just two in the AFC (I was a year too early on Houston and Cincinnati). However, my crowning achievement in prognostication was that I correctly predicted that the Eagles would beat Minnesota in the playoffs and go on to lose the Super Bowl:

"Philadelphia will take advantage of a rather weak NFC and again gain home-field advantage in the playoffs. The difference is that this year, McNabb has two decent weapons in Terrell Owens and a peaking Brian Westbrook. The Eagles will finally get over the hump and win the NFC title game after losing the previous three."

Not too shabby, eh? Now if only I hadn't put my faith in Mike Vanderjagt and the Colts.

 
Believe in "Jesus"

This past December I finally relented to the three-month onslaught of positive reviews and bought Green Day's American Idiot. I was intrigued by the retro idea of a concept album but going into it, I expected that "American Idiot" and "Boulevard of Broken Dreams," the two lead singles, would be the best the record had to offer. But now that I've been listening for six weeks, I can say that the revelatory opus "Jesus of Suburbia" is the real highlight. This is a five-part, nine minute track that's like a rock opera in and of itself. I had no idea that Green Day (let alone any band other than Pink Floyd) would have the balls to release such and epic, multilayered song. The purpose of "Jesus of Suburbia" is to introduce us to the album's disillusioned lead character, but it winds up being the best iTunes bargain (less than 11 cents per minute!) you'll ever hear.

 
I Won't Quit My Day Job

So now you know why I'm not a betting man. Of the eight wagers that I prognosticated in my post from Saturday, I only got two of them right. Thanks to David Givens, I made good on the uniform jersey wager, as that was one of the easier lines. I was also correct in surmising that T.O would have a productive game, but not even I thought that he'd be that good. It was a Schilling-like performance, but as I wrote last week, one man alone cannot win you a Super Bowl.

As for the ones that I got wrong, I'm most surprised about the sack total. McNabb was sacked four times and Brady two- these quarterbacks did not have their running game on. McNabb in particular- what were the Philly coaches thinking not calling a few draw plays and naked bootlegs?

The one wager that I'm not sure on was the length of the national anthem. I tried and tried to find it online, but I guess we'll never know whether the anthem actually clocked in at under 1:53. It sounded like a relatively straightforward, concise rendition to me. But let's just call it push and we can call it a night.

 
Wager Wire

Even though I'm not a betting man, I can't help but love the inlfux of Super Bowl bets that are being offered this week. And because "Over/Under" is my favorite game on Pardon the Interruption, I think it's time I run my own version. Here's my best shot at some of the more intriguing Super Bowl betting lines that are actually available on sites like BetOnSports.com. We'll check back next week to see how I did at prognosticating.

THE WAGER: Patriots by 7.5
THE PICK: Patriots. I'd love to see the Eagles make this a close game, the Pats have too many intangibles and I think they'll pull away in the fourth quarter.

THE WAGER: Points scored: Over/Under 47.5
THE PICK: Over. A lot of analysts are highlighting both teams' defensive prowess. But Philly is capable of hitting some big pass plays and New England can score in so many ways. I see New England's defense and special teams contributing to their scoring tomorrow, contributing to the over. It'll be New England 31, Philadelphia 23.

THE WAGER: Terrell Owens receptions: Over/Under 0.5
THE PICK: Over. Waaay over. And by that I mean T.O. will have at least 4 catches. Even though New England will jam him at the line, the Eagles will put him in motion or line him up as a flanker to get him some touches.

THE WAGER: Total Patriots rushing yards: Over/Under 121.5
THE PICK: Over. Corey Dillion will run roughshod, especially late in the game.

THE WAGER: Total QB sacks: Over/Under 5
THE PICK: Under. Both of these QBs are good at evading the rush. I feel pretty solid about this pick.

THE WAGER: Jersey # of first New England player to score TD: Over/Under 28.5
THE PICK: Over. Corey Dillon is the only logical choice for the under, and New England likes to do tricky stuff once they get in the red zone. I see a fade pass to a tight end or wideout as the first TD.

THE WAGER: Yardage length of first Philadelphia touchdown: Over/Under 7.5
THE PICK: Over. This is a tricky one, because New England doesn't give up big plays, but they rarely let you drive all the way down to the goal line either. I'm guessing the TD will come from an unexpected McNabb bootleg from 20 yards or so.

THE WAGER: Length of the National Anthem: Over/Under 1 min, 53 seconds
THE PICK: Under. This year the anthem will be sung by a choir made up of Armed Service members. Because of this, I think they'll have a traditional, concise rendition without any time-wasting vocal histrionics.

 
Half Man, Nowhere Near Amazin'

Well, the NBA All-Star game starting lineups have been announced and once again, Vince Carter has inexplicably made the starting lineup. Antawn Jamison is the latest in a long line of Eastern Conference players who have been snubbed because of the mystifying popularity of the league's softest player. The fact that Carter won the vote again this year is particularly baffling, since you would think that his massive constituency of Canadian voters would have turned against him (after to his admission that he didn't play hard for the Raptors). The Vinsanity phenomenon should have died four years ago, but due to The Brett Favre Phenomenon, fans cling to the notion that he's still an elite player.

The NBA All-Star results is flawed in the West too, as Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady are the starting guards. Wait a second, isn't Steve Nash being unanimously hailed as the MVP of the first half?! You would think that every NBA fan who is motivated enough to vote would also be the type of person who pays attention to the fact that Nash is more important, more effective and more fun to watch than any other guard in the conference.

It doesn't have to be this way-- baseball fans always do a great job voting in the most deserving players to start in their All-Star game. Previous to this year I always dismissed the trendy idea that the All-Star lineup should be taken out of the fans' hands. But with such obvious oversights (Dwyane Wade ignored?) and such monotonous choices year-after-year (Allen Iverson yet again?) commissioner Stern might just need to save the fans from themselves.

 
Bringing Brady Down to Earth

I have a huge problem with all of the talk this week that Tom Brady is on the verge of the Hall of Fame. The conventional wisdom says that all Brady has to do is win on Sunday and he gets a lifetime pass to hang out in Joe Montana's poolhouse. Over the last few years we've seen the spread of the ridiculous idea that QB greatness should be judged on Super Bowl victories alone. That's why everyone is unfairly knocking Peyton Manning and, retroactively, Dan Marino.

But here's the problem: the NFL isn't the NBA, where one great player can elevate his team to a title. Here are the reasons (in order) that the Pats have been so dominant in the past few years: (1) they have a great defense, (2) creative and innovative coaching and (3) an efficient, mistake-free offense. Brady may be New England's best player, but you can't argue that he's put the team on his back or anything. Not with guys like Bruschi, Brown, McGinest and Vinatieri playing such huge roles in the past four years.

Any NFL player will tell you that winning a Super Bowl is a complete team effort, not a personal vindication for the guy playing under center. That's why you never see anyone kneeling in front of Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer and kissing their Super Bowl rings. Furthermore, Brady's Super Bowl MVP trophies don't carry much weight when you consider that flash-in-the-pans like Dexter Jackson, Desmond Howard and Larry Brown also won the honor.

Tom Brady is a terrific player so it's a shame that he's being praised so highly to the point that he's now overrated. It would be nice if everyone could just enjoy his career in the present and not be so quick to judge his place in history. Might it be constructive to see how he plays beyond his fourth year as a starter?