The Pioneer on the Silver Screen

Being a movie buff and a sports buff, it's not surpising that I am always intrigued by the melding of my two passions: the sports movie. Yesterday it was announced that Robert Redford would be bringing Jackie Robinson's story to the big screen. I think this will make for a very interesting project, since Hollywood has actually been doing a good job with historically-based sports films recently, such as Seabiscuit, Miracle and Friday Night Lights.

The most interesting part of the story is that while Redford will be playing Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey, the part of Robinson is still up for grabs. The film is being produced by the same company that helmed Ray, and naturally they have an eye towards Jamie Foxx in the lead role. The producer Howard Baldwin even told the SF Chronicle: "At the appropriate time, we'd be nuts not to want to talk to Jamie."

But should Foxx take the part? While I definitely think that he would nail the role, it would be best for him to pass on it. First of all, there's the age factor. Robinson joined the majors at age 28; Foxx is already 37. While he looks younger than that, I just wonder if he could get back to his Any Given Sunday physique again. Secondly, Foxx just finished starring in a biopic about a mid-20th century African-American legend. This is the time for him to diversify his roles because this post-Oscar clout won't last forever.

So who to cast? I'd go with Derek Luke or Mekhi Phifer. Both have the right age, right look, and right acting chops.

 
An Elite Weekend

Simply put, this past weekend of the NCAA tournament was a joy. There weren't simply unbelivable finishes, but the regional finals were all great, competitive games from start to finish. But from all of the great drama and superb moments, three things stick in my mind:

1. The one trait separating the cream of the crop: athleticism. Coaches and media members love to trumpet fundamentals, shooting and great teamwork in the college game, but this weekend showed me that to survive in March, you need guys with hops. When you take the top 65 teams in the nation, pretty much everyone can shoot, and everyone has won some close games and everyone has several guys who can put up 20 points in a game. The difference are those few players who can make that crazy, game-changing play. Watching the West Regional final, it was clear to me that Louisville's superior athleticism won the game for them down the stretch. The blocked shots, deflected passes and tough rebounds set them apart from West Virginia.

2. Even though I watched that Illinois comeback against Arizona, I still don't understand how it happened. Deron Williams and the Illini simply ripped that victory out of Arizona's hands. When the Cats kept committing all those turnovers in the final minutes, I was instantly reminded of the similar collapse they had against Stanford in the Nick Robinson Game last year. In that game, Arizona yielded two steals and seven straight points in the final 43 seconds. Those final few tense, gaffe-filled Arizona posessions yesterday certainly elicited some fond memories.

3. I'm baffled by how poorly some of the teams executed in game-winning situations. You see it when the game is tied or the team with the ball is within 3 points. They wait, dribble, wait, let the clock tick down to 8, 7, 6, 5(!!!) before they start their drive to the basket. Arizona botched it Saturday and Kentucky completely blew it in the first overtime. It is absolutely inexcusable that Kelenna Azubuike, dribbling in circles, didn't even get a shot off. If I'm the coach, I make my point guard start his drive at the 8 second mark. That leaves enough room for improvisation in case he hits a roadblock, and it leaves enough time to get an offensive rebound if necessary.

 
Hall Passes

Despite the fact that March Madness has recently taken over my life, I did catch the news that U2 was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame last week. It got me to thinking: which modern artists will make it to the Hall? To be enshrined in Cleveland, you have to have more than just a few pop hits (which is why Lynard Skynard isn't in) and you have to have more than a niche fanbase (thus, no KISS). I'm limiting this list to any artist that debuted after 1990 and I'm breaking it down into five categories:

1. LOCKS (If they retired today, they would be inducted):

Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Radiohead, Dave Matthews Band, Green Day (American Idiot clinched it), 2Pac, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Jay-Z, Timbaland (one of the greatest producers in music history), Eminem, Outkast, The Notorious B.I.G., Mariah Carey, R. Kelly, TLC

All of these artists could headline a world tour at their peak and they have legions of fans to this day. Nirvana, Biggie and TLC all get their resumes boosted by rock's fascination with death. Eminem just makes the cut in this category; when you combine the critical praise with the cultural impact, four albums is enough to make a Hall-worthy career.

2. ON TRACK (Barring a career catastrophe, they'll eventually make it in):

Coldplay, Usher, 50 Cent, Missy Elliott, Beyonce (even after just one album), Mary J. Blige

They've all got sufficient popularity and respectability, but their careers are still too young. In Mary's case, she's about one more hit song away from being a lock.

3. ON THE BUBBLE (Probably will wind up being inducted, but you never know):

Beck, No Doubt, Boyz II Men, Nas, Sheryl Crow, P. Diddy

You could make convincing arguments either way for all of these artists. I think Puffy will eventually make it in for his industry influence rather than his music. As for Boyz II Men, nobody on this entire list was bigger than them at their peak. But when you think about it, their megastardom really only lasted less than three years before they faded into obscurity. They're like the Kurt Warner of the music industry.

4. STILL A CHANCE (These artists still have some work to do if they want Hall consideration):

Weezer, Foo Fighters, Goo Goo Dolls, Nelly, Britney Spears

With these guys, it's too hard to read how history will view them. As for Britney, she's still very young and she's such a cultural icon that the media will never let her fade out of view. But if you look at her life now, you don't see someone who's interested in having an extended, successful music career. She needs at least another five hit songs and at least one respectable album before she's in the Hall of Fame conversation.

5. MISSED THEIR CHANCE (These careers were too short and it's too late for a revival):

The Smashing Pumpkins, Everclear, Soundgarden, Rage Against the Machine, Sublime, Blink 182 (assuming their recent break-up holds), Wu-Tang Clan

These artists all showed flashes of greatness, but their careers just weren't solid enough to put them over the top. The Smashing Pumpkins may prove me wrong, but I don't think that undefined era of mid-'90s rock will garner much respect 15 years from now when the band becomes Hall-eligible. Of the groups in this category, Rage is the band that I really wish had put all the pieces together. Not only did they were the only '90s group with substantial lyrics, but they were the one band that actually got the rock-rap thing right.


OK did I miss anyone from the last 15 years? If so, let me know about it.

 
Musings from Bracketville

In between promos for Spring Break Shark Attack, CBS actually aired the games of NCAA tournament. Here are my observations:

* Even though Stanford's 23-point first-round loss on Friday was arguably its worst tournament performance in ten years, this loss bothered me the least of all of them. The repeated setbacks this team faced (Moore and Bradford leaving the team, Morris's ineligibility, the 0-3 Pac 10 start and Grunfeld's injury) had the effect of continually lowering expectations. Without any depth or reliable outside shooting (which was a problem even before Grunfeld went down) we really had no chance in the tourney. This was a rebuilding season by any measure and a 3rd place conference finish and an NCAA bid are nothing to be ashamed of.

* Louisville's drubbing of Georgia Tech today is easily the most impressive win of the tournament so far. And yes, I am kicking myself for picking Wake instead of Louiville to reach the Final Four.

* Speaking of Louisville, Francisco Garcia has the most deceptive three-point shot in the country. Here's tall, muscular foward throwing up a hiiiigh arcing bombs that look like they have no chance- yet in the basket they go.

* It really annoys me when analysts use a few tournament results to make generalizations about conference strength. The rationale goes: "Hey the Big East must be overrated because UConn, Syracuse and B.C. all lost." But that conveniently ignores the fact that Villanova and West Virginia pulled off upsets this weekend. The tourney is a hodgepodge of random events- let's not leap to conclusions just because they're convenient.

* For the second year in a row, UAB's Squeaky Johnson has claimed the tournament's Best Name award. Pops Mensah-Bonsu, JamesOn Curry, Rajon Rondo, Taylor Coppenrath and Jarrett Jack round out the Honorable Mention List.

* When Kansas set up for their final chance to win the game against Bucknell, I was torn. Do I root for the upset or for the buzzer-beater? It's hard to go against the little school when you know it would be the biggest win in school history. But on the flipside I had Kansas going to the Elite 8 in my bracket and I've always liked the Jayhawks. I ended up rooting for Simien to make that shot, mainly because it's been so long since we've had a true tourney buzzer beater. They're actually much more rare than the CBS promotional department would have you believe.

* I can't decide whether OSU-Arizona or Louisville-UW will be the best game of the Sweet 16. Either way, what could be more fun than rooting against two Pac 10 rivals?

* There is no doubt however, that Texas Tech-West Virginia is the worst game of the next round. I'm already bracing for the onslaught of stories on the resurgence of Bob Knight. I can't stand it when the media latches on to a familiar coach because they have no other reporting angles.

* As for my bracket, I've had my share of maddening blunders (especially picking Pitt to reach the Sweet 16) but overall I still have a chance. Wake and Kansas are my only Elite Eight teams that have been eliminated. It's easy to forget that you can't overreact to the first two rounds- as long as your title teams are still playing, you've got a shot to win the pool.

 
Breaking down the Final Four

Well, even though I was extremely tempted to pick Oklahoma State and Louisville, I went with a fairly conservative Final Four. With Louisville, even though I love their momentum (they've won 18 of 19) and their plethora of scoring options, the road for the Cardinals is just too tough. To make it to St. Louis, they might have to beat Georgia Tech, Washington (or Pitt) and Wake Forest. So let's call Louisville my Final Four pick that I didn't actually pick.

In my first national semifinal, I have Illinois taking on Wake Forest in a rematch of their game early in the season. In that game, Wake never knew what hit 'em, and the Illini ran them off the court. I don't think Wake's defense has gotten much better since then, so once again I think the fast guards of Illinois will push their team to victory. In my other semifinal matchup, I have Duke meeting North Carolina for the first time in an NCAA tournament game. In both of their regular season games, North Carolina clearly looked like the better team, but the Heels weren't playing up to potential. In the Durham game, McCants played terribly while Duke shot lights out, but UNC still had a chance to win at the end. In the Chapel Hill game, the Heels deserve a lot of credit for winning the game without McCants at all. I think that Roy Williams will get his house in order and win the rubber match. I know it's not exactly blasphemous to predict that Illinois and North Carolina will meet in the final. But when I filled out my bracket, I didn't try to be revolutionary, just victorious. To paraphrase Jets coach Herm Edwards, you play to WIN the pool. Hello!?!

In the final, I see the terrific guard play of each team cancelling each other out. The difference will be in the interior. While watching the Big 10 tournament last weekend, it hit me: Illinois could easily be handled inside. Augustine is a serviceable center but he's not going to push anyone around. And Roger Powell, Jr. is a nice player but with a generous listing of 6'6," he's absolutely tiny for a power forward. I see Sean May (my Final Four M.O.P.) and Marvin Williams running roughshod over these guys in the paint.

I used the Crown and Retrace strategy for my pool this year, and I had North Carolina as my national champ before the brackets even came out.

 
Breaking down the South

For starters, I can't say I'm disappointed with Stanford's draw. With only 18 wins and such a shaky end to the regular season, you can't argue with a #8 seed. That being said, you can't argue with the fact that we would have been better off being a #10 seed. The bottom of the South bracket, with Kentucky, Oklahoma and Utah, is extremely beatable. But as it stands, in order for Stanford to get through to the Sweet 16, they'll have to beat two great big men: Lawrence Roberts of MSU and Shelden Williams of Duke. I just have horrible visions of Rob Little having one of his "two fouls in three minutes" games when trying to defend a superior pivotman. If we employ a double team, think we have a solid chance against Roberts, but that strategy simply wouldn't work against Duke, who could just as easily kill us from the outside.

I've read that a lot of peoplepicking Syracuse to knock off Duke in the Sweet 16. Again, I think the allure of the familiar is at work. Jim Boeheim is a college basketball institution, Gerry McNamarra is practically a household name, so people fall in love with the 'Cuse. Too bad the Orangemen have been inconsistent all season. Sure, they're talented enough to win three or four in a row, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen against the cold-blooded Blue Devils. As much as I would love a few crazy upsets in this bracket, it will be #1 seed Duke beating #2 seed Kentucky in the regional final.

 
Breaking Down the East

With so many heavyweights at the top of this bracket, there's little consensus among the pundits. I keep hearing that Florida will make the Sweet 16 because they were hot down the stretch. But just as many others say that Florida will choke, and the Jayhawk-slaying Villanova Wildcats will advance. At the bottom of the bracket, UConn is getting a lot of love for being defending champs, while others love Kansas because of their seniors. With those two teams, I think that the media tends to get blinded by the allure of the familiar. We know the names of the UConn and Kansas players, therefore we can trust them, right? The problem is that tournament experience just isn't a reliable predictor of success.

In keeping with my strategy of going inside-out with my bracket picks this year, I decided before Selection Sunday that North Carolina would be one of my Final Four teams. Even after the brackets came out, with the and I realized that UNC is in the group of death, I'm sticking to my guns. The battle-tested Heels were the best team in the nation's best conference, so they won't blink when facing a big-name school (including UConn, which lost to the Heels at home). North Carolina is the pick

 
Breaking down the Midwest

I've been in love with Oklahoma State for weeks. I thought to myself, "here's an athletic, balanced, senior-laden team, that made the Final Four last year. I'm gonna pick these guys to meet Illinois in the title game." Then the brackets came out and darned if they weren't in the same bracket as the Illini. That demonstrates the lesson: don't get all hot and bothered until the brackets come out.

Outside of the top two seeds, this is the least interesting bracket in my view. I still don't believe in Arizona, (given their tournament track record) while B.C. and and Alabama are lightweight #4 and #5 seeds. I expect to see some upsets in the first weekend by UWM and LSU .

So what to do about the Illinois-Oklahoma St. conundrum? This is probably the hardest decision of my entire bracket. The Illini have a whole lot of similarities to last year's Stanford team (a workmanlike team, a perfect record until the last game of the season, a weak conference that raises skepticism) but they have great talent to plug into their team-first system. Okie State will make for a great opponent, but Illinois just has too many weapons.

 
Breaking down the West

(As you can see, I'm hereby banishing the city names from the regionals)

I wholeheartedly agree with everyone carping over Washington getting the top seed. I've seen the Huskies in person and there's no way this team could hang with a team that has any kind of frontcourt. They live and die by the three which leaves them vulnerable to cold shooting nights. While they have certainly looked faster than their slower-tempoed Pac-10 foes, there are plenty of teams out there that can run with them. Don't forget, this was the exact same lineup that got beaten by UAB in the first round last year.

Now that we've eliminated U-Dub (who will get out-muscled by Pitt) we come to the extremely tough Louisville-Georgia Tech game. While it's tempting to be blinded by Tech's ACC tournament run, you can't ignore that Louisvillehad a better regular season and is even hotter than Tech- they've won 18 of their last 19. At the bottom of the bracket, I'm not getting burned by Gonzaga again, so it's Wake to the Elite Eight. Now the question is, can the Deacons' overcome their defensive shortcomings against a Louisville team that's solid top-to-bottom? I'm going with the stronger conference, so Wake Forest is the pick.

 
Tourney Tip-off

The reason that Selection Sunday is one of the best sports days of the year is that when's over, your excitement doen't end. It's the rare "event" day that only signals the beginning of better days to come. I'll breakdown each of the brackets later this week, but first there are a few things on my mind regarding the tournament:

* If there's one team that deserves to be angry, it's Louisville. They had only four losses on the year, they won their conference by two games and won their conference tournament. For this they're reward was a measly #4 seed? They deserved a #2 at bare minimum. The worst part about this is that they're in the same bracket with the toughest #5 seed in the tournament, Georgia Tech.

* Every Selection Sunday I marvel at Dick Vitale's transportation proficiency. He finished announcing the ACC tournament final at about noon today. That means that he made it from an arena in Washington D.C. to a desk chair in Bristol, CT in about three and a half hours. Does he just have his own rope ladder-equipped helicopter hovering outside the arena every year?

* I still can see no rational reason for the committee to name the bracket regionals for their city rather than their region. Did anyone have a problem with the East, Midwest, South and West names? Now you have utter confusion- when someone mentions "the Syracuse bracket" are they talking about where the Orangemen are playing or the East regional at the Carrier dome?

* Since Illinois is the overall top team in the tournament, I still don't understand why they don't get to play the winner of Tuesday's play-in game. Jim Nantz explained that it was because the play-in winner needs to have three days off, but to me that's bogus. Just because Illinois is locked in to playing on Thursday, that doesn't mean that they should have to forgo the reward of playing the weakest team. It wouldn't be the end of the world for the Oakland/Alabama A&M winner play to play on two days rest.

* Last year I explained the six strategies one can use for filling out a bracket. After last year's debacle (in which I picked Gonzaga as my champ) I swore off the Comprehensive Breakdown and Go with the Gut strategies. The Live by the Seed, Die by the Seed method is probably the most statistically sound of the options, but this year I don't think it's the way to go. When you look at the teams, it's clear that UNC and Illinois were definite #1 seeds, but the next 14 teams are all at about the same level. Nobody can say with any confidence that #4 seeds like Syracuse and Louisville couldn't beat #1 seeds like Duke and Washington. Because those seed designations near the top are essentially a wash, I think gonna turn to the Crown and Retrace strategy this year. There are two strong teams this year so once I decide which one will take the top prize, I'll just work my way backwards till I reach the tourney pool promiseland.

 
Lost in the Trailer Park

In a nice bit of corporate synergy, last night Fox debuted the Revenge of the Sith trailer after an episode of The O.C. As with most Star Wars trailers, I was excited to see it; as with most trailers of recent vintage, I was underwhelmed. While the clip did a decent job of explaining the plot, there was little suspense, too much dialogue and way too many scenes of councilmen sitting around. While wondering how a Star Wars trailer managed to be dull, it dawned on me that this symptomatic of a wider trend: movie trailers just ain't what they used to be.

A trailer should give you a feel for the film's look, a clear sense of the story, offer a fair amount of intrigue and leave enough mystery to make you want to learn more about the movie. A great trailer doesn't even require a great film; my favorite trailers of all time were for Ali, Attack of the Clones and Magnolia. But other than the terrific trailer for next month's Sin City, it's hard to find anything to decent these days.

As a regular visitor to Apple's stockpile of trailers, I've been witness to a disheartening trend of mediocrity in recent months. It's more than simply bad movies being advertised- it's clear that no thought is being put into the crafting of the trailer (which is a medium in itslef). Today's trailers either give away too much of the plot, waste away the funniest jokes, try too hard to appeal to a specific demographic or don't give us a full sense of what the movie is all about. Whether it's summer popcorn trash like The Longest Yard, a high-profile sports movie like Fever Pitch or even a Pixar movie like Cars, they always come up short. The latest trailers are filled with awkward camera cuts, blaring song clips and big "comedic" set-ups with weightless punchlines. It's gotten to the point where I start watching the trailer for a movie like Herbie: Fully Loaded or Stealth but it devolves so quickly that I don't even bother to sit through the whole thing. With so many millions spent on movie marketing, it's sad that studios can't take a 2 hour movie and compile a 150-second clip of entertaining footage.

 
East Coast Bias? Naw...

I heard Tony Kornheiser express his great surprise that Maryland was knocked out in the first round of the ACC tournament today. Over the last month, many pundits have argued that the Terps are a dangerous (if volatile) team capable of making some noise in the NCAA tournament. "After all," the refrain went, "Maryland beat Duke twice this year!!" When you hear that, your instinct is to think that Maryland must be pretty good to sweep the mighty Dukies. But at what point do those Maryland-Duke games start being a blemish against Duke rather than a boon for Maryland? Maryland went 7-9 in conference and lost three times to Clemson. It's clear now that Maryland is simply a mediocre team. Duke's two losses reveal that the Blue Devils are more vulnerable than anyone has been willing to admit. Funny how everybody evaluates ACC teams with the glass half full.

 
Off the Ropes

After Thurday night's pathetic outing against Washington State, Stanford basketball seemed destined for the NIT. Such an unthinkable notion would become reality barring an upset over Washington, who have inexplicably become a Pac 10 juggernaut. But as Chris Berman would say, that's why they play the games.

I attended the game at Maples yesterday, which was a true privelege. Washington's #10 ranking notswithstanding, I especially wanted to attend this game because it was Senior Day. This is one of the great, underappreciated features of the sport and I have a soft spot for all the mushy pageantry of it. Yesterday, an electric crowd said goodbye to Rob Little and Nick Robinson and it just feels good to be there giving an ovation to two guys who gave four solid years to the program. That "Thank-You-Sen-iors" chant gets me every year.

The game itself was terrific, as the Cardinal rose to the occasion after the WSU debacle on Thursday. Hernandez led the team like a general, Haas picked a great time for a career-high 18 points and Haryasz looks more and more like an NBA player. It's clear now that this Stanford team is different from those in previous years, in that we generally play to the level of the opponent. In previous years, we have played with robotic consistency, no matter the opponent or the location. But this year's games against Oregon State, Wazzu, ASU, the first Arizona game and yesterday's game reveal a much more volatile team. Assuming we make the NCAAs, I could see this team losing by 10 in the first round, or pulling off two upsets to make the Sweet 16. It all depends on the matchups doled out by the Bracket Gods.

 
Baron the Beacon

It's been a week since the Warriors traded for Baron Davis and I'm still having trouble believing it actually happened. A young, talented, proven player has come to the Warriors?

This franchise is famous for it's ugly history of no-talent draft picks and its acquisition of overpaid, past-their prime veterans. But even more devasting has been the fact that the team hasn't been able to keep the few good players that have come through Oakland over the last decade. From Chris Webber to Latrell Sprewell to Larry Hughes to Gilbert Arenas, the franchise has a pathetic history of watching their best players flee (often traded away) and flourish with new teams. Then when a proven guy like Nick Van Exel comes through, his production and attitude plummets. Needless to say, this is an excrutiating team to root for: we can't retain our homegrown talent and we can't utilize the talent that we acquire. Warriors players always play down to the franchise.

I worry about Baron's injury history, however his 25 year-old body is young enough to regroup. After all Grant Hill is seven years older and even he turned it around after being injured for four seasons. I'm just ready to be optimistic about a player who can score, be a leader, and most importantly, create. This is a guy who could lead turn a busted play into a dunk, lead a 15 point comeback in the fourth quarter or put a team on his back for a long road trip. But the best part of the Baron Davis acquisition? He's under contract until 2009. That kind of commitment provides much comfort to wary Warriors fans... if the franchise doesn't screw him up, that is.