Friday, August 22, 2014
It's always someone else's fault
I'm going to do a horrible thing to my fellow Michigan fans. I'm going to bring up The Horror. Not because the Rematch That Only an Idiot Would Schedule is a week away, but because of this article on The Wolverine.com. Dave Brandon, Creating the Future™ was kind enough to offer another litany of excuses about the expected sparse attendance at next week's soiree and, per usual, blame everyone and everything but the most obvious factors (i.e. those connected most closely to him.)
"The biggest shift was in the student section. There was a big decline in level of interest, and we've seen historically there's a lot of correlation between success the previous year, strength of schedule and level of excitement. And television does such a great job covering games that younger people are more comfortable getting content in digital fashion on a screen."
Yeah! Those damned kids these days! No responsibility. No tradition. No willingness to get kicked in the face and come back for more! I mean, really, Dave. It couldn't be because you've treated them like ATMs and are charging them the highest student ticket prices in the conference (the nation?) for a declining product and an awful home schedule, could it? No!
"But it's a one-year transitional situation. I don't like it any more than anyone does. It was not my idea to play at Michigan State two years in a row."
No, it wasn't. But it sure as shit was your idea to schedule Appalachian Fucking State. I mean, it probably seemed like a lark to you, didn't it, Dave? You'd roll in here, pick your genius successor to RR and, coming off the undoubted conference title and Rose Bowl win three years later, we'd exorcise the demons of debacles past.
Except...
No one really wanted to revisit that debacle except App. St. fans and MSU fans who still count that as their greatest sporting memory from their years at State. I can go out on a limb here and speculate that almost no Michigan fans wanted to be seeing the greatest upset in the history of the game every day on BTN for the next week. (I know that ESPN likes to claim that the Stanford upset over USC (JBC!) was somehow bigger because it was on their network and the spread was bigger, but there's only one team in college football history that has gone from a top 5 ranking in the polls to out of them in a single week and, uh, that's Michigan. Because they lost. To Appalachian State.)
"Combine that with what he expects will be a great year with young talent and you'll see a bigger response from the student section next year. At that point, he said, they want to make sure those tickets are available to them.
That, of course, puts pressure on Brady Hoke and this year's team to win at a high level."
Uh-huh. You see, I was at that game in 2007. I picked up a couple tickets for free because, well, there were a lot of them available, just like this year. No one wanted to see a game against App. St. then, when Michigan was coming off an 11-2 season with one of the most dominant defenses of recent memory (albeit with a season-ending duo of losses to both OSU (again) and USC in the Rose Bowl (again.)) Michigan was ranked in the top 5 with seniors aplenty, but there were gaps throughout the crowd from the opening kick to the miserable ending. So, as long as you're insisting that people's TVs are what's keeping them from attending games and not the ridiculous prices ($65 face for App. St. this week), you're likely to keep being mystified and blaming everyone else 3 or 4 years down the road, too.
"I've been able to get to a couple practices, and I can tell you the pace and the tone and tenor are different than what I've seen in the past. Everybody is extremely focused, understand this is a real important season we have ahead. There's a lot of disappointment people remember from last year, and we want to fix it. The best way is to achieve great things. I'm excited about the season and can't wait to get it started."
I've been to a practice, too, and I can say that it looked pretty much like every other practice I've seen over the past 40 years. Everybody spouts the same bullshit in between seasons that didn't end "successfully". They're always going to be "more aggressive", "more focused", and "more intense". The problem here is that they're also "more expensive" and the first game is against an opponent that most Michigan fans would like to forget about and which the rest of the football world simply deems forgettable. And no one scheduled them but you.
"I don't go into any season with any coach laying out standards by pulling a record out of the air. Too many things can happen over the course of the season in any one sport that create variables. We can't predict the future. My expectation is like anybody else's. We're going to play like Michigan plays football. We have a lot of great talent coming back on defense, a fun and exciting defense to watch, and it will be really interesting to see the work Doug Nussmeier is doing with the quarterback and offense, how we can clean up some things that led to last year's disappointment … we just want to see continuous improvement."
Funny, because what you're saying is indicative of why people aren't buying tickets this year. So, you don't have a guideline for Coach Dante's ("He's not even supposed to be here today!") success, but it sure is important to be more successful because, otherwise, people will gladly stay home and watch... their... TVs? Hey, if the team really is bad and/or the opponent really is unappealing, what makes you think that people are going to bother to watch the game on TV? "Continuous improvement"? Yeah, that's be great. Is that just within this season with the awful schedule or is that a brand-new philosophy that you coined right there in front of Balas, because looking back at the last three seasons under your hire, I see 11-2, 8-5, 7-6. Something doesn't seem right about those numbers...
"I like the recruiting pipelines, the quality of student athlete Brady and staff bring in to program. I like all the things I hear from players about growing, and believe the program is going in the right direction despite the second half disappointment. That' spilled milk. What we're focusing on is the future."
Dave Brandon, Creating the Future™.
Oh, and don't forget that part of the scheduling problem is that stadia might be used for other events.
Anybody getting married? Head to the App. St. game and be reminded 7 or 8 times where you can hold it...
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
My sympathy equates to zero
A short article appeared in the Newspaper of Record today about the changes coming in the college athletics (mostly football) landscape as a result of both the O'Bannon ruling and the NCAA's change that gives the top 5 conferences (mostly football) more leeway to decide how they want to conduct business. As with many Times articles, the reaction to anything new or different is viewed through a prism of general distaste and trepidation for anything that might disturb The Way Things Have Been. The paper doesn't have the nickname "The Gray Lady" for nothing.
My reaction to the article is simple: Yeah, life is rough makin' millions, isn't it?
You want to pay your coach $1.4 million and another 3/4 of a million in bonuses? Pay your players for the money they generate that enables you to do that. You want an athletic center that costs $6.7 million? Pay the players that are spending more time there than they would at a full-time job, in addition to their schoolwork. You want to play with the big kids while a reporter says that your "relative isolation in California's vast Central Valley" gives you a big fanbase? Pay the players that attract that fanbase.
It's just like major companies bitching about raising the minimum wage. You say it's not worth it to do business in the area anymore? Fine. Seeya. I'm quite certain that a smaller, local business will gladly step into the shoes you left and do quite well for itself because you didn't feel like your employees were worth a living wage. The examples of that are prevalent.
If all of this is an extended whine about how you won't be able to attract the best players because of the costs involved, I'm afraid you'll have to remind me of the last time Fresno St. attracted the best players. Oh, right. That would be never. Also, there's only so much room on the rosters of Stanford, USC, and UCLA, so anyone that wants to play big-time ball that doesn't make those rosters will probably still come to Fresno St., providing that you're willing to do those things that the Times is currently bitching about on your behalf: like stipends so they can travel home or their families can travel to see them play, or health insurance post-college for injuries they incur while making you that money, or access to people who can represent their best economic interests, etc. You know, all of that stuff that means treating them like any other person in any normal economy who's trying to extract value from their talents and skills.
The galling thing is that people like (now former) FSU athletic director, Thomas Boeh, even refer to what they do as an "industry" and then somehow gloss over the fact that the workforce of that "industry" is about one step above indentured servitude (they get room and board and a degree that's worth less and less every day and are denied mobility and any access to the real value of their abilities, from their employer or anyone else.) But if you bring this topic up to most NCAA or university officials, they'll insist that it's about "education". So, which is it?
So, no, I have no sympathy for FSU's desire to keep up with the USCs and UCLAs of the world. The only reason that Fresno St. is even in the conversation is because of the millions that institutions like ESPN have been willing to throw at the school to show its students risking their bodies on the field for money that they won't see a cardinal red nickel of. Until now. It's a brave, new world out there, filled with rights and moneymaking opportunities that other workers claimed a long time ago. Feel free to start crying me a river anytime, Mr. Boeh. It may be the only way you can build a new aquatic center if you still want to pay your football coach more than most Americans will earn in 30 years...
Friday, August 1, 2014
Lost in the cosmos
So I saw Guardians of the Galaxy last night and was
fairly underwhelmed by it. Critics are raving (92% on RT), Charlie Jane has
suggested that it’s spiritually redeeming on i09, and everyone that I went with
(a group of 8 other people) basically loved it. I feel like I’m missing
something essential here but I’m not quite sure what it is.
The movie is intended to be a comedy, even with the
darker overtones of the backstory in the Marvel Cinematic Universe™. The main
character, Starlord, is pursuing an orb (MacGuffin) that also happens to be one
of the Infinity Gems in the long lead-in to the Thanos saga (we’ve seen two of
the others in the form of the Tesseract (typically known in the comics as the
Cosmic Cube, which wasn’t an Infinity gem) from Thor and The Avengers and
the Aether from Thor: The Dark World.) In the course of his efforts, a small
group of criminals, misfits, and outsiders ends up banding together to
essentially save the galaxy; hence, the ‘Guardians’ title, which ends up being
more appropriate in this context than the original team could ever aspire to.
The original team was created in 1969 by Arnold Drake and
Gene Colan and was part of the surge in sci-fi topics surrounding the success
of the Moon landings and the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was a pretty
straightforward story of Earthlings and Earth-colonials banding together
against an evil reptilian race known as the Badoon. They appeared off and on
over the decades until the early 90s, when Jim Valentino helmed a regular
series for 62 issues. The membership has changed over the years to more closely
resemble the group from the film but, last I knew, when I flipped through a
couple issues at Vault of Midnight a few years ago, Dan Abnett was still
playing them pretty straight. Yes, even with the talking raccoon wielding the
big gun.
This film doesn’t do that. It’s clearly meant to be sort
of slapstick, especially when one notices that the best and funniest lines come
from Rocket (the raccoon), voiced by Bradley Cooper, who is constantly disgusted or bemused
by the “stupid humans” all around him. In fact, the best part about the film
was the dialogue, as the story was completely linear and loaded down with the
usual tropes of intro-crisis-resolution in clearly delineated acts, the love
interest, the heroes winning through with not a scratch on them, etc. Combine
that with the fact that the characters were pretty shallow and the acting
ranged from bad to adequate and it’s really hard for me to recommend the film
to anyone. From my perspective, it’s the poorest offering by Marvel Studios in
the modern (post-2000) era, largely because it’s a couple explosions away from
being a Michael Bay film that most critics would rightly savage. It’s a lot of
flashing lights with a few characters that I’m familiar with, which makes it
something I’m fine with sitting through rather than walking out of, but that's about the best thing I can say.
And, yet, everyone else loves it.
Now, you could assume based on how well you know me, that
I’m just not a fan of the absurd or chaotic and this kind of action comedy
simply doesn’t play to me… and you couldn’t be more wrong. Before we went to
the theater, several of us were sitting in a local restaurant, drinking and
cackling hysterically about old Venture Bros. episodes. That show, along with AquaTeen Hunger Force and Archer, are some of the greatest cartoons ever made and
they’re all in the same vein as Guardians. The one essential difference may be
somewhat subtle: Venture Bros. is designed to be a parody of well-worn
sci-fi/adventure tropes, specifically Jonny Quest. Archer is similarly a spoof
of Bond/Bourne stories and ATHF is just a trip into the strange, but still
loaded down with cultural cues from the geek world (like the Mooninites.)
Granted, sometimes you play to the capabilities of your actors. Comparing Guardians to Avengers once again, it’s obvious that there’s far more ability in a cast of Robert Downey, Jr., Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Chris Helmsworth, Scarlett Johansson, and Jeremy Renner, among others. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Lee Pace, and the voice of Bradley Cooper just can’t quite keep up when it comes to watching people do interesting things on a screen. That stuff matters to me when I’m watching a film and one can argue that the personal talent and gravitas of someone like Downey keeps the one page plot of Avengers moving along, whereas Pratt doesn’t quite have the cachet to do the same thing for Guardians. Strong actors can work with weaker material and make it into something worthwhile. Not-so-strong actors often can't.
But, again, here I am attempting to make my case in
technical terms when everyone else seems to “get it”, without question. I’m pretty
far removed from the superhero days, as I haven’t regularly read anything of
that sort other than Astro City (which is only barely a “superhero” comic)
since the early 90s. Part of why I gave up on most of it was because they
weren’t showing me anything new. When I could read a story in 1993 that
instantly recalled something I’d read in 1978 because it was essentially the
same plot, I start getting bored or I feel like I’ve passed the point where
that stuff will ever be interesting and they’re just pandering to the new,
younger audience which clearly doesn’t include me. By the same token, I’m still
willing to watch most of what Marvel produces on the screen because it’s kind
of dredging up that excitement and hope for exactly what I’m seeing from 20 and
30 years ago. I always wanted to see Iron Man on film and the first one was a
great film; not just a great superhero film, but a great film, period. The ones
that followed were not so much, but I’m still willing to see most of those
classic characters in the theater because of what I’d read as a kid and an
adult. I didn’t read about Rocket Raccoon 20 years ago (even though he first appeared in the 70s.) Is that the
disconnect? I have a hard time believing that just being more familiar with the
characters would have convinced me that the plot wasn’t complete boilerplate
and Zoe Saldana could act her way out of a paper bag (even though I enjoyed her performance as Uhura in the first Star Trek reboot; again, it's possible that it was just the shallowness of the characters that was the main impediment.)
I guess there is something to be said for simply kicking back and "enjoying the ride" and I'm fine with doing that if the story intrigues me at all, but this one simply didn't. So, what am I missing? What is it that the vast majority of both public and critics seem to see in this movie that I simply don't get? This is far from the first time this has happened (see: Forrest Gump and Titanic), but it's the first I can recall where I was as baffled (I know precisely why I think those latter two sucked, but that's another post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)