iPopCulture.NET

Well, if you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you no doubt have noticed the pot that got stirred on an earlier controversial post. As of now, the post has 31 comments. Since I don’t feel like dealing with something so deep today, I thought I would talk about another controversy on a much lighter note.

March 19 kicks of the Men’s College Basketball NCAA Tournament (the play-in game doesn’t count IMO). There will be 65 teams (okay, I’ll give the game its recognition) competing in the single elimination tournament in hopes of being crowned as the National Champion.

There are 31 automatic bids in the tournament. These come from teams that win their conference championships. The other 34 teams get at-large bids, meaning they are deemed as being one of top 34 schools left that did not win a conference tournament.

The conference tournaments give unlikely teams a chance to make the NCAA Tournament through a string of good luck and nifty wins. This was seen recently when Northern Iowa, a team unlikely to get an at-large bid, won the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament.

By allowing conference champions, the tournament brings diversity by allowing mid-major “Cinderellas” to enter the tournament. Perhaps that is why basketball fans are familiar with schools like Gonzaga, George Mason, and Valporaiso. This is why we may never forget the names Adam Morrison and Bryce Drew.

However, here is where the controversy is brewing. Jay Bilas, an ESPN analyst and Duke grad, is proposing that the NCAA Tournament get rid of the 31 automatic bids and take the top 64 (or 65) teams in America. Bilas actually argues this will help the mid-major schools and even bring in more “Cinderellas” to the tournament.

The problem is, most of the underdog teams in the tournament are teams that would not be considered in the top 64. They have no national exposure, they don’t play on ESPN, and most of America does not know they exist. By not rewarding conference champions, the little guys would be knocked off.

Instead, conferences like the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and Big East might get every one of their teams in the tournament. Not only does that make the conference tournament worthless, it almost makes the regular season worthless as well. Instead of playing for a spot in the tournament, teams in major conferences would only be playing for a seeding.

Also, with Bilas’ idea, teams going into their conference championship with sub .500 records would have nothing to play for. Fans would have nothing to travel for either.

With the current format, teams like Georgia (17-16 record) can come from nowhere and win the SEC tournament and make the NCAA Tournament (as happened in 2008).

Prior to 1975, only 1 team per conference made the NCAA Tournament, meaning you HAD to win your conference championship. Now Bilas wants to do away with the importance of the conference champion altogether.

What’s your take on this? Should conference championships hold significance? Should we do away with conference champions altogether and take the top 64 teams? Should we go the way of some and expand the tournament to 128 teams? (Yikes!) Sound off!

Here’s some Friday fun for ya! Hey! Down in front!!!

Today we received some exciting news at Randall House. Josh Hamilton, All-Star Outfielder for the Texas Rangers has agreed to do an interview with us for CLEAR Horizon and Direction magazines. We’re not sure when the issue will land, but you can count on it in the immediate future. 

If you’re not familiar with Josh Hamilton or his story, I encourage you to check out www.iamsecond.com. The site features testimonies from athletes, musicians, actors, etc. It’s very well done, so I encourage everyone to check it out. 

We only have about 10-15 minutes to actually conduct the interview. Most of the questions have already been decided. However, we’re open to changing the questions around if anyone has some good ideas.

If you could ask Josh Hamilton one question, what would it be?

Several weeks ago, I finally purchased Alan Moore’s graphic novel, Watchmen, after putting it on the back-burner for several months. The novel, credited by Time Magazine as one of the Top 100 novels of all time, has received much attention lately with the new Watchmen movie debuting this Friday, March 6, 2009. Within a couple hours of reading, I knew why. I started reading the novel on Friday night, and by Sunday afternoon I was halfway through the 400+ page comic book.

The novel, which takes place in the mid 1980s, is seemingly outdated. It talks of conflict with Afghanistan and Russia, problems with Nixon, the assassination of Kennedy, and other issues that were way before my time. However, Moore’s captivating writing is undeniable. After diving headfirst into the book, I was extremely excited about the movie. I even happened to have 2 sneak preview passes to see it early.

Things started to change for me as early reviews rolled in. I expected the movie to stir up a great amount of publicity, and it did and has, but not exactly for the reasons I was hoping. 

Here’s what some critics and reviewers have been saying about the movie:

Anthony Lane, New Yorker: Nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it. You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile, and two dogs wrestle over the leg bone of his young victim? Go ahead. You want to see the attempted rape of a superwoman, her bright latex costume cast aside and her head banged against the baize of a pool table?  

Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: Snyder fills the screen with eye candy. [There's]  brutal murders, dismemberments, attempted rape. The sex is graphic, the violence more so. 

Tom Huddleston, Time Out: Snyder’s biggest impact is felt in the action sequences, which are also the film’s weakest scenes: overstylised, repetitive and pornographically violent. 
Snyder rides roughshod over such subtleties: ‘Watchmen’ may be the nastiest blockbuster ever devised. It luxuriates in snapping bones and literal explosions of gore. It’s here that the gulf between comic and movie becomes most clear: Gibbons’s drawings were often shocking, but they served a purpose. Snyder employs violence for the rush, and while this approach is sometimes brutally effective, it’s also deeply crass.

Joe Lozito, Big Picture Big Sound: To keep his audience interested, Mr. Snyder has made the film alternatively cheesy (the 80s dialogue, a gratuitous sex scene) and brutally violent (the opening fight, in particular, goes on far too long).

I could list many more reviews that say similar things, but I think you get the point. The movie inevitably uses extreme violence and extreme sex/nudity to bring in its audience. While some may argue the movie is only staying true to the book, those who have read the book know this isn’t quite the case. Zack Snyder took many liberties to make the movie as gory and sexual as possible.

Some might not see this as an issue, but there is a huge issue at hand. I had a recent discussion with my boss, Jonathan Yandell, about movies that use extreme violence and sex. He mentioned that movies used to only use one of the two elements, not a combination of both. However, as times have changed, people seek both elements when they go to movies. The scary thing is, a mindset that craves and enjoys graphic sex and graphic violence is the same mindset that is found in serial killers. The craving starts out small, but the desire keeps increasing and increasing until it reaches a level of absolute sex and violence.

No one would dare argue Watchmen is a wholesome movie, but how many people are actually thinking about how the movie affects them? How many people realize how the mind reacts to seeing extreme violence, sex, and nudity on screen?

For those who would say “It doesn’t affect me” I would say 1 of 2 things to you: 1) You’re lying or; 2) You’ve become so numb and desensitized by violence and sex that it doesn’t bother you anymore. That is a scary thing!

So who watches the Watchmen? Not this guy!

If you’ve ever had a “first date,” you know they can be nerve-wracking. You also know we’ve all done some dumb stuff on first dates that could make for great TV or a great book. For those teens (or even freshman college students..ahem) here are a few tips on how to ruin a first date:

1. Ask the Person Out 10 Minutes After Meeting Him/Her
If you try this technique, you might not even make it to a first date. Asking someone out so quickly implies 1 of 2 things, or both: (1) I’m only asking you out because of your physical attractiveness; and/or (2) If you get to know me anymore you’ll know I’m a huge loser and someone you shouldn’t be dating so I have to take my chances right now before it’s too late. 

2. Ask the Person Out Through a Text Message or Facebook
Enough said. 

3. Show up Late
Guys, if you want to start out in style, show up no earlier than 30 minutes late. Make her wait awhile. Make her wonder where you are. If she calls, don’t answer…it builds anticipation. Oh, and flowers…don’t bother. They’ll die soon anyway. And why open a car door when she’s perfectly capable of doing it herself? Girls, don’t be ready when the guy gets there. There’s nothing we like better than sitting in your parents’ living room with your dad for 30 minutes while you get ready.  

4. Dress to Impress Standout
Guys, definitely go with tacky clothing. Maybe a nice tuxedo shirt will work. How about those dirty tennis shoes with no laces. Maybe even a pair of Crocs. Don’t shave, don’t shower, and definitely don’t wear deodorant. You can always cover it up with a full can of Axe. Girls, wear something very provocative. There’s no better way to ruin a date than to get the guy’s mind in the gutter right away…as well as every other guy that passes by. Make yourself feel special and try to attract the attention of everyone else in the world. 

5. Eat Dinner at a Buffet
Let her know that since you’re on a tight budget and can’t afford her ordering steak, you’re taking her to a buffet so she can eat all she wants. After all, you’ve heard how much she can eat! Bonus tip: Forget your wallet at home!

6. Talk About Your Ex
If you talk about your failed past, you won’t even have to use words like rebound or fling. Your stories will imply that for you. You might as well make that date feel unspecial and insignificant right away. After all, they need to know they have to share your heart with someone else.  

7. Go for the First Kiss
Wait! A kiss on a first date could ruin the date? Well, in theory a “kiss” may not seem so disastrous, but saying “I can’t control my emotions or hormones enough to wait until later in the relationship for this moment” should tell you something about the person you’re dating.  

8. Drop the “M” Bomb (Marriage)
Yes, we live in a fast-food drive-thru era, but 2 hours does NOT equal long-term commitment. If you want to end things quickly, pull out your wedding book and start talking about the color for your tux’s or bridesmaids’ dresses. Maybe even bring your parents along for the date.