The Sex-Crazed Mormon Basketball Star

I promise not to use the phrases "tiger blood" or "duh, winning!" or "goddesses", Oh, and I promise doubly to not mention Charlie Sheen, or the drug of the same name.

I'm a big sports fan, and among my favorite sports, college basketball is near the top. Late last week, a really interesting situation arose at everyone's favorite Mormon University and their basketball team.

Brigham Young University's basketball team has been exceptionally good this season. Possibly the best they've ever been. They have a breakout star on the team, whose name is Jimmer. He's a scoring machine, and largely as a result of his dominance, BYU has shot up the national rankings.

Late last week, though, BYU kicked their 2nd best player, Brandon Davies, right the hell off the team. A move that significantly hinders their chances in the upcoming NCAA Tournament.

So, what did Davies do? He didn't assault a fellow student. He didn't cheat on an exam. He didn't get caught doing drugs. He didn't go to the Salt Lake City Zoo, murder a tiger, wear it's tiger pelt, and drink it's tiger blood (SHIT!!).

He had sex with his girlfriend. And then admitted to it.

Yup... That's all. Not to steal the comments of others, but all Davies did was exactly what I planned and hoped and plotted to do every minute of every second of college with any number of goddesses (DAMN!!) , except during the select few moments I succeeded.

Had there been a chance that this kind of thing could get me kicked out of school, or out of a play or whatever, I would have almost certainly risked it.

And here he owns up to his actions to his university, and they summarily remove him from his team, and threaten to remove him from the school.

The thing is... I think the school isn't wrong, exactly.

When a student goes to BYU, the rules are made crystal clear. You can not drink. You can not smoke. You can not consume drugs (including caffeine). You can not engage in pre-marital sex. Even with your serious girlfriend. These are known going in.

It's not like with me, at my job, when after 3 years of being paid a certain way, I was told that my whole pay structure was changing, and I could either accept it or find a new job. That's changing the rules after I'm waist deep in it.

Brandon Davies knew the rules before he decided to go to BYU. He knew them well enough that he told on himself after he broke the rules.

The rules are clear, the punishments are detailed beforehand. The school simply followed through with the ruling that they say was predetermined 100 years ago or whatever.

So, maybe the school wasn't wrong. Exactly. But I wonder if it's the right decision anyway.

I wonder if it's fair to the rest of the basketball team, and the dedicated fans who have longed for a successful team. I know in the military (at least in the movies), the actions of one soldier can result in the punishment of the whole unit. Is that legit? Wouldn't the argument be that poor Jimmer and the rest of team has had one goal for a whole season, which is, you know.. duh, winning, (FUCK!) and one horny player getting his rocks off with his girlfriend has potentially short circuited that goal.

I wonder if it's really fair to the student. Listen, I'm not saying that the oath they take is unimportant. I think it is important, but I also know how I was when I was 20. Promising not to have sex while I'm sitting in a sterile Dean's office signing an oath is a lot different than asking me to stand by that promise when I'm sitting on my couch watching some sexy movie with my sexy girlfriend. It's a lot to ask from a kid. Ask Charlie Sheen (CRAP!) how difficult self-restraint is. Maybe it is reasonable to ask, and maybe I'm cutting the kid too much slack, but what about the responsibility a school has to educate?

When I was a freshman, I was cut from a musical theater program for some reason or another, and was basically told that I needed to go to school somewhere else if I wanted to learn about what I cared about. I've always wondered if that was really serving the function of an institute of learning. If I was passionate, and willing to learn, and try to get better... how could they justify kicking me to the curb, even if I made mistakes.

Shouldn't the school give the kid a chance to correct himself? Isn't there a probation? Isn't there leniency to be had since he admitted it?

I dunno.. I see both sides, but I am also troubled by the situation on a human level. Logically, yes... Brandon Davies broke the rules that he knew were rules. He was basically punished exactly as expected. But damn... I feel for the poor horny kid who made a mistake that had it been any other kid at any other school, he would have simply exchanged high fives with his teammates.

I guess this is starting to head toward being more a "Are Mormons, or ANY religions for that matter, responsible to adjust their expectations to a more modern slant." Maybe it's not realistic anymore to expect a passionate celibacy.

But that's for another blog. That's what we call a teaser, because THAT'S how I roll.

Shut up and Play

(The Salad Days)

Do you know why I liked Tiger Woods? Because he was a fucking drone. Nobody knew anything about the guy for 15 years except for 4 things:

1) He loved his daddy.

2) He loves his privacy.
3) His wife is Swedish, Smart, and very, very Hot.
4) He's a pretty good Golfer.

That's it. I didn't have to think about him in any sort of critical way. He was a god-damned golfing robot and it was fun to marvel at his amazing shots and it was easy to ignore just about everything else, because he was so bland and uncontroversial that there was literally nothing else to pay attention to.

You see... that's what I look for in my celebrities... lack of celebrity.

I don't want to know what Malawian child is now part of their brood. I don't want to know what crack-pot religion they're suddenly saved by. I don't want to know who or what they are sleeping with. I just want to enjoy their movies and their music and their athletic prowess. Is that too much to ask?

Tom Cruise was once among my favorite Hollywood stars. He made fun movies, he seemed fairly likeable in an abstract way (the only way any of us regular folks can possibly understand). Then he got Scientology in him and started making a nutcase of himself, and soul-crushing Katie Holmes and NOW I have to acknowledge he's a person with a personality. Not only that, but a person with a personality I dislike. I am forced to admit that he's not Pete "Maverick" Mitchell or Jerry McGuire or Lestat. I HATE that. He's not a good enough actor to make me forget about the couch jumping or the whatever. Unless you're a fucking transcendant talent, you'd better keep a lid on it. Sadly, Tom Cruise is no Jack Nicholson, so we can't forget about every wacked out thing he does. I will admit that he was incredible in Tropic Thunder, but I can't decide of that was simply because I couldn't believe Tom Cruise was doing it at all.

Didn't everyone love Michael Jackson before we knew anything about his personal life and terribly childhood? Why did we need to know that he was a super-freak?

Look... I'm not saying in any way, shape, or form that I condone the actions of any of these people. If Michael Jackson is breaking the law by passing around the Jesus Juice, then he should be in jail and I get why that's news...

Tiger Woods didn't break the law. He got into a car wreck and cheated on his wife. That just makes him a bad person, not a criminal. This is why I'd rather this wasn't news, since it's really not important. I have no illusions and I know that many of my heroes aren't particularly nice people... does it make me a bad person to just wish I didn't know?

I'd rather not know that Walt Disney was anti-Union and that he possibly named names. I'd rather not know that Sean Penn has opinions aside from "Hmm... this role seems really cool" or "I would love to start directing the Walt Disney biopic that is so sorely needed". Sadly, because I know these things (and because I can think), I have to modify my perception of this person... It ultimately may not make a lick of difference...In Penn's case, I happen to think he's so good as an actor that I can somehow look past the personality of Penn himself. In Walt's case, I just think the millions of good things outweigh the dozens of bad, and more importantly... I've invited the information myself having read multiple biographies, so I have nobody to blame but myself.

Tiger Woods is a person who until now I've only had to have one opinion... "Jesus this guy can play some effing Golf". Now, because I'm incabable of not thinking about those things, every time they cut to a shot of Elin in the grandstand I'll be looking for the giant-ass "Kobe Special" (House on a finger). I'll be forced to modify my opinion to include shit that is not relevant to my enjoyment in sports, which is the only thing I want to reference Tiger Woods for anyway.

You know why I love Tom Hanks? Because he keeps his mouth shut, and if he's banging models behind Rita Wilson's back... nobody knows about it. (Also he's fucking great at what he does). You know why I love Johnny Depp? Because when he's done with his movies he goes home to France and shuts his windows and only comes out to act the shit out of whatever project he has next.

Athletes are tougher, because they're dumber, and many of their transgressions of late seem to be actually related to the sports... Steroids especially have totally curbed my enthusiasm.. I'm digressing.

Here's the upshot of what I'm trying to say...

I'm not interested in what any of these people do in their personal lives. I don't want them to talk about it. I don't want to have to read about it. I just want to enjoy watching them do the thing that made them famous. Tiger Woods has removed himself from an elite group of people who have achieved astounding heights of fame solely for being incredible at his profession and for being otherwise so uninteresting that we had only his golf prowess to discuss. He's ruined that forever. Not by doing those things. I'm not naive enough to believe he's the only one. He ruined it by failing to keep that shit private. The one thing he values the most. Now he's just one of an ever-growing group of idiots for whom I have mixed emotions about. I will still marvel at his athletic ability and I will still root for him to win, because it's the only thing that makes golf even remotely followable. I'll also still have to endure endless "Tiger Woods hole-in-one" jokes for the rest of his career. And for that he can not be forgiven. (We certainly can't leave it up to Leno to use some humor discretion.)

I don't want to be forced to acknowledge these people are people. That's one reason I love cartoons... Mickey Mouse isn't fucking Daisy Duck behind Minnie's back. Captain Hook doesn't have a terrible gambling problem. Stitch isn't juicing. I want to look at all of my human entertainment the same way I look at cartoons.

Pure entertainment, no humanity to distract.

Good, but not TOOO Good.

Simon Cowell has just about the toughest job in the world. I mean that. I know what you're thinking...

"Muchacho! How can you say that? He's rich and he gets to be mean and people expect nothing else from him!"

And well yeah... that's true. But here's the thing... well...a couple of things..

1) I actually don't think he IS mean. You can sort of tell when you watch that he does actually like people, and he's never afraid to compliment someone if they actually deserve it. It's not his fault (well... probably it is because he's the boss) that he's the only judge really allowed or able to give actual, realistic opinions. I mean c'mon... Randy is a doof, Paula is Paula, and Kara just... I had high hopes that she'd be the legit female Simon and whatnot. A current songwriter with actual recent success, and she often sounds less coherant than Paula Abdul. So no... Simon's only mean in comparison to the cotton candy unicorns that the rest of them perpetrate on us every fucking week.

2) Simon's soul IS black and cold, true, but not why you'd think. And here's where I begin to explain my thesis... I think it's the worst thing in the world to know better and to understand nuance and levels, and yet feel compelled to ignore them based on forces that are not only outside of your personal control, but also soul-crushing. I think that's the situation Simon finds himself in... I think it's completely plausible that there are people they've had on that show who Simon actually might respect artistically, or really personally enjoy as an entertainer, but who he's destroyed them in critiques. Why? Because he knows that his comments do actually have an affect on voting, and his biggest nightmare is if someone wins who isn't readily marketable. It's not personal. It's not about his personal preferences. He wants to make money and Taylor Hicks ultimately makes him no money.

NOTE: Taylor Hicks is the perfect example here. He sort of captivated the idiot masses for a short time (due to the schtick), but in the long run went super, super stale very quickly. He's the only American Idol winner who was really more the winner of a reality show, and less a winner of a competition for entertainers. It's not that he was bad at what he does, because he's not, but he's a niche guy. More on that later. But I digress...

Simon's soul is black because it has to kill him to toss people under the bus who he probably finds more interesting in favor of pimping the safer bets. By "safer", I mean more generally marketable. I think Simon subscribes (as all people who want to make money over art should) to the Michael Eisner model (well.. early Eisner). Hit singles and doubles and take the sure things. If you play for the homerun, you strike out a lot more. It's probably less interesting on a creative level, but it's a way surer thing when it comes to making money.

3) He's got the finest line to walk when it comes the advice and criticisms he doles out. Everything he says is calculated to drive the person he WANTS to win toward winning. He knows that his target audience is middle America. The Average Joes who would rather listen comfortably to Nickleback than to be challenged by Radiohead. There's a reason why Radiohead wins Grammy's while Nickleback is the best selling group in the world right now. Simon knows this. His challenge every week is to subliminally lead America toward NOT voting out the people who combine being interesting/current/polished/skilled/versatile while also not being tooooo interesting/current/polished/skilled/versatile. There's a reason Michael Sarver will be on the tour. America eats that shit up. A current pair that stands out to me is Kris Allen (who I can barely ever remember) and Adam Lambert (who I can hardly stop listening to).

Two weeks ago, Adam Lambert did this crazy-ass rendition of Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire". I personally loved it. Simon "hated" it. He called it "Horrific" and "self-indulgent". I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "Bullshit". I don't know if he liked it or not, and that's really irrelevant. I think that what Adam did was not by any measure "horrific". Possibly self-indulgent, but it wasn't his arrangement so whatever. Anyway... what I think happened was this: Adam did this wacky thing and it was during country week, which happens to be an important demographic, and Simon REALLY wants this dude to stick around so he dinged him a little. Like... "Get back a little closer to the middle and you'll win this thing." Adam wasn't in any real danger of going home THAT week because there were too many people less popular so it was the perfect time to "knock him down a peg" and get him to understand that it's okay to be different (David Cook's "Billie Jean") but not okay to be TOO different (Sanjaya...anything). It's great to be good (Jordin Sparks), but it's a little touchier to be GREAT (can't think of anyone right now, which is sort of the point... Maybe Jennifer Hudson or Melinda Dolittle (but then that's another thing altogether)).

Then you have silly Kris Allen who this week, during the Motown theme, sang some song or other... (I literally can't remember, because he's so fucking boring). Now Kris is the exact opposite of Adam Lambert in almost every way, but he's getting the same sort of push from the other direction. Kris is more than serviceable. He's talented. He's got the looks that girls plaster their rooms with and he can sing and play guitar, which pretty much makes him a walking dollar sign. The thing is... he's also kinda forgettable. He's so nice and simple and wholesome. He's like the Osmonds... Got the skills and the looks and whatnot, but you're still hungry for more when they're done assaulting you with their Book of Mormon or their songs or whatever. So what does Simon do? Simon knows that Kris is safe...the teen girls will save him for a while longer for sure... so he says the exact opposite thing he tells Adam "be more interesting. Have more swagger. Do something self indulgent."

It's a fine, fine line. Adam Lambert is great. He's not everyone's cup of tea, but there is absolutely no room for debate that he's a singular talent. He's totally unpredictable, even down to the modulations within his songs. This scares Simon, because it excites him at the possibilities, but it also doesn't always translate into sales. On the other hand Kris Allen is as predictable as a McDonalds McNugget. The same every time. He's got talent, but people also want to remember your concert five minutes after it's over. One of them Simon tries to rein in. One he tries to set loose a little. It's a fascinating balancing act to watch as he coaxes two front runners. Can't be too negative too often or the voters will start picking up on it and will follow suit (the only one this didn't work with was Taylor, and turns out Simon was right.) Can't be too positive or there'll be a "bandwagon backlash".

I was thinking about this a lot, and I am trying really really hard to think of a music icon who would have been a safe bet from the start. I can't think of one. This leads me to hypothesize that you can't predict the all-timers. You can predict the solid stars and the giant failures (usually), but it's nearly impossible to predict the ones that are the absolute grand-slam home runs, and so chasing them isn't a good business model (again with the Eisner singles and doubles.)

Elvis? Some people say he's the most influential entertainer of the 20th Century (I say Walt Disney, but whatever). That said, how do you predict a white boy from Mississippi who sings gospel and rock-a-billy becoming the biggest celebrity in the world based on this wacky new music?

Madonna? She's essentially a dancer with a serviceable voice (at best). If a music producer told me that they'd signed a dancer with a serviceable voice to a record deal and said that some day she'd be the richest, most successful female singer of all time, I'd tell them that I'm not a leprechaun and that I don't grant wishes. She basically become a star through sheer force of will and charisma. Not something quantifiable.

Michael Jackson? Now...he's a special case, because he was a star as a kid before he had any control over her personna and whatever, but let's say a completely unknown Michael Jackson showed up at Motown Records in 1983 or whatever and he was all "Salutations friends. I'm gonna be the most famous person on Earth in 2 years! Send me your chimps and small children!" I'm pretty sure that record executive calls the cops.

Anyway... It's a tough job Simon has is all I'm saying. You can't predict the legends. In fact, it's more a matter of not fucking up the sure things and hoping for the best.

Alan and I were discussing whether or not the mediocre ones know they're mediocre and merely playing to the middle... and I honestly don't know. Part of me wants to think that Nickelback knows that what they're doing is fluff and that they're okay with it, because they do their side projects to satiate their artistic insides and then they go tour and they bang really really hot dumb girls and roll around on their mattresses stuffed with cash. They are not without talent. I don't honestly believe you can be a success without having at least some talent.

The difference between them and a John Lennon is that the dudes in Nickelback are at peace with (at the least) or even embrace (more likely) their middle of the road confomity and they suckle at that teet until it runs dry. I do think there's probably some delusion in there too... like they probably occasionally write a song where they're all "This is it! This is the one where the artistic and the mainstream finally collide and we take it to that iconic level" and it's just another one of the 50 songs that sound exactly the same as all the others. On the other hand, I have no problem seeing John Lennon thinking that every song he ever wrote was total shit, and he pops out Imagine or Yesterday. Or even one of the 50 other legendary songs.

I guess my extremely long-winded point is that Simon Cowell's goal isn't to find the next John Lennon or Elvis. His goal is to find the next Nickelback. That may kill him every day, and it may just make him seem awfully mean to guys like Kris Allen who have the talent but no personality, so they just need a little nudge to be truly commercially viable. And it may kill him worse to kinda ding Adam Lambert who artistically is an unknown on this type of show and possibly has the ability to do amazing things, but might just be a little too scary for general American consumption in his current form.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is it possible to predict greatness? Discuss...