The Dome is Always Golder

I've been thinking a lot, over the past couple of weeks, about the nature of college football, and the perceptions that have reigned for years and years.

The impetus for this rumination (also the word for the digestion process of cows and other multi-stomached creatures) has been the absolutely ridiculous saga of Notre Dame's search for a new head coach, and their ultimate poaching of my Cincinnati Bearcats and Coach Brian Kelly. In the end, I think the cause was lost from the beginning. This based on this, apparently universally accepted, notion that the Notre Dame head coaching job is just better. Well... this blog is about how I vehemently reject that notion. To that end, I will break down a few of the more common arguments.

1) You Can Be A Legend!
Well... I'm not going to argue that at Notre Dame you can be A legend. My argument is more along the lines of this... While you can be a legend at Notre Dame, you can't be THE legend. That spot has been filled for quite some time in the daunting figure of Knute Rockne. You could win 5 straight national titles and you'll never be mentioned in a breath by yourself. It could MAYBE be "Coach Kelly and Coach Rockne", but even that is a real stretch. At some point there are legends that will never be surpassed. Wooden. Lombardi. Rockne.

On the other hand, if you win a title at the University of Cincinnati... you may as well just set aside for the re-naming of I-75 to Coach Kelly Highway. This town, so football insane that 75 year old men are identifed as Elder Panther letter-winners in their obituaries. So hungry for a title that the 1999 Cincinnati Reds, a team that didn't even make the playoffs, are looked upon fondly... Brian Kelly could have been THE Legend. Not just at U.C. but for the city. A National Title puts him at the top of the list.

I'll take it a step further. If you're not the first great, you're never the greatest. Urban Meyer will never be as beloved as Steve Spurrier, because Spurrier STARTED it. Pitino could never be as loved as Rupp. Those guys may statistically surpass the originals, but the nostalgia keeps them down.

2) The money is just too attractive.
Again... I can't argue with the fact that over dueling 5 year contracts, Notre Dame will out-pace just about anyone (except maybe Texas, apparently.) The bigger issue really is that this is truly a short-sighted viewpoint. I guess it runs counter to the ego required to believe you can actually succeed at Notre Dame, but the recent evidence shows that you're not getting more than 5 years unless you win a title. A BCS bowl won't even earn you 2 years of slack. So let's say that Notre Dame pays you 4 million a year for those 5 years (plus bonuses) and UC pays you 2 million a year (plus bonuses) over that same time. Yes... you're going to make more at Notre Dame over 5 years. Still... let's say you are exactly as successful as Charlie Weis and you get canned after 5 years. UC wasn't firing Brian Kelly. At this point, 2 straight BCS bowls has earned him at least another 5 years, and there's no reason to believe that the success wouldn't continue. So lets say Kelly stays at UC 10 years. Even if he re-ups his contract for the exact same amount (which he wouldn't), with 2 mil a year plus bonuses, he's made more money at UC than he would at Notre Dame (barring significantly more success than his predecessors). Oh...and you're a legend at UC.

I realize I'm making several assumptions, but these assumptions are based on past coaches at Notre Dame with similar success or expectations prior to their arrivals. My broader point is that in the short term, it's true that Notre Dame will pay more, but the likelihood of staying at UC 2 or 3 times longer is very high as well, and at that point the money catches up and becomes less of an issue.

3) You can't win a National Title at UC.
I think that Brian Kelly himself has quieted that talk significantly since his arrival 3 years ago. He won the Big East in his 2nd year and played in the Orange Bowl. Ended in the top 15. He won the Big East and went undefeated in his 3rd year and his (now vacated team) will end the season at 2nd in the country if they beat Florida in the Sugar Bowl. There was a very good chance that had Nebraska beaten Texas that UC would be playing Alabama for the championship THIS season. Even if not, they would have certainly been one of two teams that would be (along with TCU.) We're not talking about cinderella stories here. We're talking about seconds. We're talking about mere percentage points. If I think about it too much, I get dizzy. It's not like talking about George Mason in the Final Four. The Big East is a BCS conference. 2 Straight BCS titles is no joke.

I honestly think the better question is whether you can win a title at Notre Dame. While it apparently has the same appeal to Coaches that it did in 1978, it's been fleshed out for some time that the top athletes don't want to spend their prime ho-scoring years in South Bend, Indiana when they could be spending it in South Beach with The U or at Florida or in Pasadena at USC. You may get the odd top recruit who grew up in the area and wants to play there, but they are becoming less and less. Oh...and it's a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless that many of the top players can't make the grades necessary to even be accepted to Notre Dame. Mardy Gilyard, the Bearcat's best player over the past 2 seasons (and the man possibly most responsible for making Kelly the most desired coach in the land) was academically ineligible for the 2006 season. He would have NEVER made it into Notre Dame.

4) But it's SOUTH BEND.
I read an article that pointed out something interesting (and possibly irrelevant), but when Parsegian left Notre Dame, he was in his mid 50s and never coached again. When Dan Devine left, he was in his mid 50s and never coached again. And those guys were the LEGENDS. Ty Willingham has collapsed so badly after getting canned from Notre Dame that he likely won't get anothern shot after this last disaster. Charlie Weis went in with such confidence that it's jarring to see him taking such gross and petty pot-shots upon his exit. This place will straight-up fucking MURDER you. Brian Kelly is big talk now, but let's see how he feels when people are demanding his firing after he goes 10-3 and loses in the Fiesta Bowl. The thing about South Bend is that there's absolutely nothing to do besides sit around and stew about that football team. Nobody there cares about basketball. Nobody there cares about Purdue or the Colts (or Lions or Bears). It's all one thing being focused on, all the time, all year round. Yes.. it's South Bend, where they bleed gold... but that's a blessing and a curse. You get the best, loyalest fans anywhere in the world, but you also have the shortest leash of anywhere on Earth. Brian Kelly has never faced a single moment of adversity in his entire coaching life. He won a D-II National Title then sold out his team to move to Central Michigan. He abandoned Central Michigan for the next step on the run at Cincinnati (Right before a bowl game),and he just did the same. I'll give it to the guy...he wins. He's as good a coach as we've ever seen here. I just think that while it may matter to us what he did 2 years ago... It sure as hell won't matter to Notre Dame. It's the only place where he could WIN a title and still be on the chopping block 2 years later. The best thing is that there was already a contingent of die-hards who were totally against his hiring in the first place since he's a known democrat and known to be pro-choice. This is something that is an issue for a FOOTBALL COACH in one place only.

Some additional thoughts:

This is just a theory, and it's as of yet totally unsubstantiated, but what if Kelly is like Bob Huggins, who was better at coaching players "up" as opposed to coaching top level players to play to their expected level. Huggins' best teams were always the teams that over-achieved. His best players (aside from Danny Fortson) were guys who came in unheralded (Steve Logan, Bobby Brannen, and of course Kenyon Martin.) He made really solid players out of guys like Eric Martin, Nick Van Exel and Terrence Gibson. He got only moderate production out of guys like Mr Basketball Keith Gregor and Mr. Basketball Leonard Stokes and McD's All Americans like Dontonio Wingfield, Damon Flint and Kenny Saterfield. I'm not saying that Kelly is the same way, but we have no idea what he would do with "top flight recruits". I think some coaches are better wringing extra production from guys with chips on their shoulders. I dunno...

Could he have handled the whole situation in a more classless way? I'm going to say no. From the apparent consistent lying to his players, to the utterly gutless way he ducked out the backdoor of the awards banquet, to his complete disregard for the players and fans at UC during his opening presser at Notre Dame. I think it's interesting that less than a week after I write a blog about how I'm typically unsurprised with how athletes and celebrities conduct themselves, I found myself surprised by his conduct. I applaud Mardy Gilyard and the rest of his teammates for being candid about how they feel about the whole thing. The dude sold them out for a paycheck. Nobody can begrudge him leaving for his dream job. He should have handled it better.
So...with that said, I say Good Luck, Brian Kelly. I believe I'll find myself rooting for the rude awakening you have coming to you. I'll give you the props if you win, but I'm not holding my breath for an Irish resurrection. (Touchdown Jesus pun intended.)

Lease Options

Hey Folks-

Friday Flicks is tough to get in on time when I'm in a show. I'll have to write a few and have them in the hopper, I guess.

Anyway, I went last week to see the movie "Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway". Basically, they filmed a few performances from the final week of the run of Rent and edited them into one show video. A very well made one. I was moved watching this film as much as I'd ever been watching the actual show. It occured to me that as powerful and well crafted as this particular film was, is exactly how lacking in power and craftsmanship the 2005 movie version is/was.

"Why is this?" I thought to myself. "Why does the same exact material feel so real and honest in one case and so fake and contrived in another?"

I have a couple of theories that maybe are applicable elsewhere, but definitely are focused on this particular case.

Theory 1) Age.
I honestly believe that the biggest mistake they made in making the 2005 film was bringing back the original 1996 Broadway cast for the majority of the roles. I think, largely, that the play is about living the life of the young. There's a sharp contrast made between the adults and the heroes, and I think that's undermined when Maureen is 35 instead of 25. At 25, her attitude of rebellion is pretty inspiring in places, and sort of endearing. At 35 you kinda want her to get over herself. Not that Idina Menzel isn't great, but the ages are important.

The character of Roger, to me, is the best example of this. Roger is infected with AIDS, and his whole "thing" is that he's trying desperately to make his mark on the world before he dies. I think that whole scenario wields more power if he's tragically young. Not that AIDS is ever NOT tragic. That said, my point is undercut by the fact that Will Chase, who plays Roger in the good movie version is actually a month older than Adam Pascal...

Actually wait... I have a better way of explaining it. It's neat to bring these people back, but for me, bringing these same people back, who at the time were all fresh faces and have all moved on to other things... they've been spoiled. On some level the play is about people struggling in their youth, so having these unknowns really adds a level of freshness that was lost when they brought back the original, now successful, now recognizable people. The greatest thing about Rent when it came out was that these people were so real. They were largely unaffected theater outsiders. I liked that.

Theory 2) Style.
Here's the thing... I don't think movie musicals work well. They used to. West Side Story is one of the top 20 movies of all time, in my opinion. The problem now, is that movies in general now strive toward more realism in general, unless they are SUPER stylized (Eternal Sunshine and Across the Universe are both examples.) In 2005, they could have done Rent in a super stylized way and they'd have been more successful. In fact, the play itself is very stylized, so why go from that to creating a "realistic movie with people randomly singing". It's like... Chicago was successful both commercially and artistically because that show is already so much about style and Rob Marshall held on to that. Instead you have Angel singing "Today 4 U" on a Subway train and Mark riding his bike and singing "Halloween" and I just can't deal. It's a contrivance. The "Filmed on Broadway" version was so good because they didn't have to change the stylistic concept. It works already.

Theory 3) Reality.
The movie musicals that best work today are the ones that are about show business or performing or music already. (Hairspray, Dreamgirls, Chicago). They have these built in excuses to sing or dance or whatever. It aides the audiences along with their willing suspension of disbelief. The most common criticism of movie musicals from those not used to that genre is "Nobody just starts singing. How do they all know when to join in?" and shit like that. Movies have the implied responsibilty to be more realistic, and it just isn't. On stage, there's a much greater willingness on the part of the audience to suspend their disbelief. The line between actors and characters is a little murkier. The person in the balcony may not have any clue that Roger is 38. It's pretty easy to tell in HD on the big screen. Angel and Collins singing "I'll Cover You a nebulous "nowhere" place in the show doesn't set off alarms. Angel and Collins doing the same thing on a REAL subway train does set off alarms. When you can see the lights and the scaffolding, you accept that you're not in a REAL place.

There are more theories, certainly, but I guess the main point overall is this...

Rent was a show created to be dirty and unhomogenized and real....or...as real as a musical can be. By glossing it up and taking away it's organic, chaotic quality, it loses it's power. It's anarchic bent that makes it safe for Collins to rewire an ATM machine or for them to break into apartment buildings.

If you've never seen Rent before, do anything you can to see the new "Filmed on Broadway" version. You won't regret it. Then see the other and see if you agree.

The Age-Old Question

Hey folks...

Tonight while hanging with my sister, who will be 21 next May, a question has arisen, and I am feeling the need to sort out my thoughts.

First, a little background. My dad and step-mom have made a sort of tradition of taking us kids (Yes...I'm 28...shut it.) on special vacations when we turn certain ages. When I turned 18, I went to New York where I saw Chicago, Ragtime, and 1776. A great trip. When I turned 21, they took me on my first trip to Vegas. When my sister turned 18 they took her (and fortunately me as well) to Disney World. So... now the time has come to start thinking about where she's gonna go next year when she turns 21. The de-facto option, and ultimately where she'll go is Vegas. Seems obvious really... I don't blame her. I love Vegas. The parents love Vegas. She's a Vegas type of chick.

Still...that got me thinking... What vacation spot do I like better? Disney World or Las Vegas?

I know that it would seem to be an obvious answer, what with my Mickey Mouse tattoo and my insanely detailed knowledge of everything about and surrouding Disney. Well... granted. I love that fucking place.

That said though... Vegas appeals to my adulty, debaucerous side as much as Disney appeals to my childlike, innocent, idyllic side. So I'm gonna try to do this scientifically...

Weather:
Orlando is pretty effing hot. Seriously. And it's humid. Las Vegas is pretty effing hot. And it's dry. So, I'd be inclined to say that Vegas wins, because sweating sucks ass, and while you sweat in both places, at least the air isn't working against you in Vegas. BUT... Orlando has days when it's NOT 90 degrees. I've been there in November, December, and January when it's absolutlely beautiful and not sweltering hot. So... DISNEY

Priciness:
Let's face it...both are pretty fucking expensive. Disney gets you on all of the hotels, entry fees, souvenirs, air-fare, and food. Vegas gets you on some of those things, but I'm gonna give the advantage to Vegas here, because while both are pricey, when last I checked, in Disney you don't at least have a shot to bring more money home than you left with. VEGAS

Kitch:
Both have unbelieveable kitch-value attractions. The Magic Kingdom is full of silly, dated attractions that are vaguely racist and offensive. Definitely misogynistic. The Carousel of Progess alone can provide a sarcastic person more material than they'd ever need. Vegas, on the other hand, may actually be the world capital of Kitch. The LIBERACE MUSEUM. Elvis' Wedding Chapel. Sigfried and fucking Roy. Celebutainers. Seriously...it's the most ridiculous (and awesome) place on earth to see cheesy things that probably were never cool, but definitely aren't cool now. Except that they ARE cool, because of how fucking sqaure they are. Get what I'm saying? VEGAS

People Watching:
This would seem to be a no-brainer, because after-all, Vegas passes out free alcohol in every casino and encourages as many drunk people to walk around in the street as possible at all hours. And yeah...that's fun and all, but let's be honest...I don't really LOVE watching drunk people after like..the first dozen. On the other hand, at Disney you have the wonderful experience of people from every foreign land you can imagine, taking in the wonders of the most homogenized American experience you'll find anywhere. The Latin ladies who are clearly in charge of their macho husbands. The weird Germanic dudes wearing what amount to be not much more than a glorified speedo. The Japanese family eating at the Japanese restaurant in Epcot, and sighing with relief at the first familiar food they'd eaten in a week. The older British couple who appears to be enjoying people watching just as much as you. True, you're unlikely to watch the beautiful Comedia d'ell Arte piece of drama unfold in front of you when the "incognito pimp" tells his "incognito ho" to "make some mo'fucking money" at Disney World, but you're unlikely to see a little child take a sloped corner a little too fast in his wheely shoes and wipe out into a topiary while in Vegas, and that's just something that can't be missed. DISNEY

Founding Visionaries:
Sammie will probably have issue with me not meaning Billy Wilkerson here, but for Vegas, I'm assigning Bugsy Siegal. For Disney..well... Disney obviously. And really that's the crux of the argument here. I realize I'm biased, but I think the most amazing thing about Disney World (Disneyland too) is that it was basically conceived by one dude. Walt Disney. The man single-handedly orchestrated the greatest public entertainment project ever created. He created the Theme Park as we know it today. His parks essentially created 2 major cities. (Anaheim and to a larger degree Orlando). I could go on about his specific ideas about marketing, and tourism, and entertainment for hours, but I won't. Just know that I'll do my best to argue for Bugsy, but he's gonna lose. Bugsy was basically a mobster who came up with a place close enough to Los Angeles to attract all of his rich friends. He didn't invent the idea of Vegas (Wilkerson did, with the legalized gambling and off-track betting), but he did sort of glamorize that, and he paved the way for Trump, and Steve Wynn, and Sheldon Adelson and you gotta hand it to whomever it was. Vegas is pretty fucking amazing. Still... Walt.. DISNEY.

Re-visit-ability
This is a hard one (that's what she said). I think that the majority of people will say Vegas is obviously more re-visitable, and they're probably right. Unless you're an insane person like me, there probably is a limit to the number of times you experience The Great Movie Ride before you know the dialogue and can critique specific performers, and that limit comes long before you can do that. With Vegas, however, things are constantly evolving. New shows, new entertainment, new hotels. And more importantly, there's SO MUCH to do that you probably could take a whole vacation and never leave the Bellagio and have a good time. It's just so fucking big. That does have an appeal. So...as much as it pains me, if I'm looking at it objectively...VEGAS

Food
This one's easy...Vegas has every restaurant that Disney does, and Vegas also has about 40 extremely high-end restaurants that Disney doesn't. There's great food at Disney, especially in the Hotels, but c'mon people... VEGAS

Family-Friendliness
As much as Food was a home run for Vegas, this category might as well have "Disney" engraved into it as part of the question. Like... "The Disney World Memorial Family Friendly Award" or something. Vegas ain't the place for tykes. In fact, one of the bid draws of Vegas is that the kids are typically few. (I venture to say, though, that if the category was about how many kids were conceived, Vegas would kill it.) DISNEY

The Verdict.
In EIGHT categories, we end up tied. I love them both. I would go to both each year if I could. The question really comes down to where I'd go if I could only go to one. And for me... It's Disney. The reason is that for whatever reason, I have this nostalgia about Disney that Vegas will never provide. I'll never forget my first trip there when I was 13 (maybe even a little too old to love it as much as I did). Still my favorite vacation I've ever had. In fact, I think it's safe to say that of the top 5 vacations I've ever had, Disney has 3. Vegas has one. My road trip is probably the other. I have so many fond memories of driving down with my family. Of seeing Epcot (E.P.C.O.T. at the time) for the first time after years of seeing Mickey waving from on top. I mean... The first game of slots I played at Ceasars Palace back in 01 was pretty fucking sweet, and Mystere is still the greatest thing I've ever seen. They just don't have the same profile in my memory.

So I'm glad I did this. It was closer than I thought. Go ahead...commence the mockery.