College football ramblings

As we await the bowls that are actually meaningful, a few thoughts on the college football season...

Division I college football will crown its champion when the Ohio State Buckeyes square off against the Louisiana State Tigers in New Orleans on January 7, 2008. And that annoys the mess out of me.

It's been discussed to death on sports TV and radio, and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of words have been written about it on various sports websites--the BCS does not work:

* for the first time in history, there's a very real chance that a team with two losses will become Divison I-A's college football champion. In fact, considering that Ohio State had a LOT of trouble with a speedy SEC team just last year in the title game AND that LSU will essentially be playing a home game, I predict that's exactly what will happen. But that doesn't really bother me.

* Missouri, a school that this season lost only to Big XII champion Oklahoma, won a division title and had a Heisman finalist at quarterback was left out of the BCS mix in favor of both Kansas and Illinois, two teams that it beat. But that doesn't really bother me either.

* Hawaii, the only undefeated team left in Division 1-A will have no shot be be named champs. That kind of bother me.

The reason that the first point doesn't bother me is because I think it's stupid that we've historically decided that more than one loss automatically eliminates a team from contention. That is putting way too much emphasis on one variable at the expense of many others (more on this later).

The second doesn't bother me because the national championship game is the only bowl that matters. All other bowl games are just exhibition matches that pretty much mean nothing.

The third bothers me because there is nothing more that Hawaii could have done for a shot at the title game. They won all their games. Their critics say that their schedule was too soft. I say, uh...Kansas? Ohio State? How exactly were their schedules so much stronger? And both of those schools lost a game.

This is the 10th year of the BCS so it's a perfect time to review it. Has the BCS proven to be a worthwhile system? Let's see:

* 1998: Kansas State finishes third in the BCS but is passed over for a BCS bowl by Ohio State (4th) and Florida (8th). Rules are changed after the season to prevent this from happening again.

* 2000: Oklahoma finishes undefeated and three teams finish with one loss. To make it even more interesting, two of those losses came against another one loss team. Florida State's one loss came against Miami, whose one loss came against one loss Washington. The BCS determines that Florida State is the best of those three teams and the Seminoles go on to lose to the Sooners in the Orange Bowl. Meanwhile, Miami wins the Sugar Bowl and Washington wins the Rose Bowl. Rules are tweaked in the off-season to provide a "quality win" bonus for defeating a top-10 team.

* 2001: One loss Nebraska is selected for the title game despite not winning the Big XII or even the Big XII North division. They go on to lose in the Rose Bowl against Miami. Meanwhile, one loss Oregon beats Big XII champ Colorado (who gave Nebraska its lone loss) in the Fiesta Bowl.

* 2003: Six schools finish with one loss (USC, Oklahoma, LSU, Boise State, TCU and Miami of Ohio). Oklahoma, ranked number one by the AP, Coaches and the BCS loses the Big XII title game. This causes them to fall out of the number one spot in the human polls but they retain the top spot with the computers because they do not take into account the time of loss. USC rises to number one in the human polls but the computer rankings are enough to keep OU in the title game. The Sooners go on to lose in the BCS title game and the coaches are obligated to award LSU the number one spot, despite the fact that USC had been number one heading into bowl season and won its bowl game. AP writers, under no such obligation, keep USC at the number one spot, causing a split national championship...the very thing the BCS was supposed to prevent.

* 2004: Five teams finish undefeated (USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah and Boise State). USC and OU are placed in the title game, where the Trojans win. Both Auburn and Utah also win their BCS bowl games, leaving three undefeated seasons after the bowl season. Additionally, two teams (California and Texas) finish the regular season with only one loss apiece to the title game contenders. Prior to the final polls, Cal is ranked ahead of the Longhorns. However, Texas is jumped ahead of the Golden Bears in the final poll, possibly due to lobbying by Texas coach Mack Brown. This places Texas in a BCS bowl, while Cal is left out.

* 2006: Ohio State and Boise State are both unbeaten at the end of the season, with four one-loss teams (Michigan, Florida, Louisville and Wisconsin). Florida is selected to play against Ohio State in the BCS title game. The Gators go on to win and are named the national champions. A week earlier, Boise State had defeated Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl and ends up as the nation's sole undefeated team. Despite this, they finish the season ranked fifth in the AP poll and sixth in the coaches.

So to sum this up: in 10 years of history, the BCS has ended in controversy SEVEN times (due to how this season has played out, there will be controversy regardless of the final outcome). And although I haven't documented them all, the BCS had to change rules in almost all of those seasons to prevent that particular mishap from occurring again...only to have a different one appear (this season, the BCS was forced to change rules in the middle of the season by expanding the candidate pool from 14 to 18 teams due to the possibility that not enough teams would meet the criteria). Can you imagine having a job where you do not fulfill your job expectations 70% of the time and still somehow are able to remain gainfully employed? Does that make ANY sense whatsoever?

Before the final week of the regular season, Missouri and West Virginia were ranked #1 and #2 by the BCS and were on a collision course to meet for the national championship. If you've read this far then you are a college football fan and know that they both lost and were knocked out of contention. Had this been any other week during the college football season, the voters would have done the logical thing and moved up the third and fourth place teams (Ohio State and Georgia, respectively). However, because this was the final week of the season, many voters changed their voting method and instead voted on which team they thought should play for the title. This allowed LSU to jump not one, not two but five places to the number two spot. There is no way whatsoever that such a scenario would have ever occurred during any other weekend during the season, which is troublesome for me. If voters are changing how they vote during different parts of the season, isn't that inherently reducing what little objectivity there is to the whole process? Either vote during that last weekend the same way you do during the rest of the season or during the earlier part of the season use the same method that you plan on using during that last weekend. I realize that you can't be completely methodical about it because by the end of the season you have a larger body of work at your disposal. But is it really that difficult to say each week, "If the season ended today, this is the order I would vote teams to play in the title game?"

There's a chance that, by the end of the bowl season, we will have nine (nine!) teams with two losses and 11 or 12 wins. And then we could have 13 more that finish with 10-11 wins and no more than three losses. Let me repeat that: at the end of the season, it is entirely possible that we could have 22 teams that finish with a record of no worse than 10-3 and no better than 12-2. How in the world is it possible to definitively state that one of those teams is the best? The answer is that we simply cannot.

As I said earlier, the BCS has historically ignored teams that had two or more losses. I think that's stupid. Look at Ohio State. They played the system perfectly this year. The Buckeyes are in the the title game because the voters determined that they were the best one-loss team in the nation. Never mind that they played exactly two teams that finished in the top 25 and only managed to win one. Or that out of 12 games they left the state of Ohio four times. Apparently that's good enough. Except that Kansas has a similar resume but was given no shot at the title game. The difference being that the Jayhawks didn't win their conference. Evidently there's an unwritten rule that that is a prerequisite for being good enough to play for the national championship. Never mind the fact that the Indianapolis Colts, the San Antonio Spurs and the Boston Red Sox are the defending NFL, NBA and MLB champs despite NOT having won their respective conference or league. But they were still given a shot. If anything, I think LSU is more deserving of a shot at the title than Ohio State is. Their two losses both came in triple overtime and they played a much more difficult schedule. But even in saying that, I have to remember that many of the Tigers wins were close as well. So can I say that I know that they are better than Oklahoma, USC, Hawaii or Georgia? Nope.

That's the real problem with the whole BCS. When we start using human bias to help determine the winner, it is no longer really a sport but a beauty contest. Right now, college football is in the same category as diving, gymnastics and synchronized swimming because the winner is not objectively determined. Twice within the past five years, college football experts were ready to anoint teams as being among the best ever, using pretty much the same process that AP, Harris and coaches use. The 2003 OU Sooners and the 2005 USC Trojans had people ready to put them on the pedestals at the end of each of those respective seasons. Neither one of those teams won the title game that year.

To me it's extremely evident that some other process that allows for objectivity has to be put into place. A NFL-style playoff is not the answer because this is college football and it needs to retain its own identity. But there has to be some way to use the BCS to determine the best eight or 10 or 12 teams and then have them play for the title. Sure the ninth (or 11th or 13th) place team will complain but that's a whole heck of a lot better than not having any distinguishing features between all the teams between first and sixth place (I'm sure the 66th place basketball team complains every March but it's much less controversial, isn't it?). A lot of people would complain that it devalues the regular season. Yes, it would. But is that worth finding the true undisputed champion? I say yes.


A couple of other points:

Tim Tebow deserved the Heisman. He was the most outstaning player in college football this season. Compare his season to that of the best season by the best dual-threat quarterback in I-A history (Tebow's numbers are projected out to the Capital One Bowl):

Vince Young (2005)
CMP 212
ATT 325
YDS 3036
CMP% 65.2
YPA 9.34
LNG 75
TD 26
INT 10
SACK 13
RAT 163.95


Tim Tebow (2007)
CMP 235
ATT 343
YDS 3393
CMP% 68.5
YPA 9.88
LNG 66
TD 31
INT 7
SACK 13
RAT 177.85


Not too shabby, I say. When you watch Tebow play, you notice that his spiral isn't quite as tight as Young's, he's not as fluid an athlete, and yes, many of his rushing touchdowns were on carries that were less than five yards out but to hold those things against him is the epitome of nitpicking. He WAS the Gators offense this season. The Heisman isn't for the prettiest player or the one with the NFL potential. It's not even for the Most Valuable (which is why I didn't disagree when Reggie Bush won it over Young). It goes to the Most Outstanding. Tebow was that. Although I really would like to jump into the "What If?" machine and see how voting would have turned out had Dennis Dixon not gotten injured with three games remaining.


Finally, I find it interesting that Michigan had such a hard time hiring a new coach. When you combine that with Notre Dame not getting their first choice in Urban Meyer three seasons ago, it goes to show how the landscape of college football has changed. The two schools with the most wins in history (and thus ostensibly the most prestigious) had trouble landing coaches. It shows that coaches are thinking a lot more. Why go to a school with unreasonable expectations and trouble attracting the athletic players necessary to compete in the modern game? Bravo to those coaches who think things through.

That does not apply to Bobby Petrino. He's a snake.

Why don't black women like hip hop?

November 11

Femi is wondering why black women don't like hip hop. 11:21pm

On Friday, November 9, I hit downtown Austin to see one of hip hop’s best live performers, Lyrics Born. As I sat in the back waiting for the wack second act to mercifully get off the stage so that LB could rock the spot, I engaged in a favorite activity of mine: people watching. In doing so, I observed a group of people to my right. What stuck out is that two members of the group were black females. So I thought to myself, “Hey, two black girls.” They were the only two black girls out of the 200 or so people who had made it out to Emo’s for the show (although I’m pretty sure that at least one of them was mixed). That’s not the first time I’ve made that observation. Pretty much any time I go to an underground show and see black females, I’m thinking to myself, “Sweet.” It’s a rather rare occurrence. But this was the first time I took that line of thinking further and stopped to ask myself the question: why don’t black women like hip hop?

(Uche, at 11:43pm on November 11th, 2007: You might wanna rethink that comment.... (@ your status))

Now, I should stop here and make two notes:

1) When I use the term “hip hop” I am not referring to the diluted audio crack rocks that record label pushers slang on the radio corner and in most video show housing projects. That’s not hip hop. (I could train a dog to bark on beat every time a monkey bangs a wooden spoon on a metal pot and call THAT hip hop, don’t mean that it is.) I’m talking about that pure uncut dope. That’s right: I’m in full hip hop elitist mode and I’m using drug metaphors; that let’s you know how seriously I’m taking this.

2) If you happen to be a black woman reading this, I am not asking why YOU don’t like hip hop. If you do like it, great. If you don’t, what’s wrong with you? Just kidding (only not really). To each her own. What I am asking is why are black women the one demographic group least likely (and by FAR) to attend an underground hip hop show?

I go to a lot of shows and most of the time there’s a fairly standard look to the crowd. I see white dudes and white chicks, Latinos and Latinas, Asian guys and Asian girls, black guys…and more white girls. And it’s not limited to just shows. I see virtually the same breakdown at b-boy competitions, graffiti exhibits, open mic nights, etc. Why is this?

(Maria at 10:17am on November 12th, 2007: what black women have u been talking 2? and are you speaking of hip of old or "hip hop" of today? there is a difference...)

Now there are exceptions. There are always a lot more black women when I go to see Strange Fruit Project. But that’s kinda skewed. When I see them they’re always performing to their home crowd and a lot of the people in the audience are family members or friends. I’d be curious to see what the crowd looks like at one of their shows in Chicago or San Francisco.

The other exception takes a little more exposition. When I’ve gone to see The Roots or Common or Talib Kweli there are also always a lot more black women. But what these artists all have in common (no pun intended) is that they are backed by major labels, meaning that they have songs on the radio and videos on whatever channels play music videos nowadays. So I have to wonder if that’s what it takes for black women as a group to start following an artist. But again, I have to wonder…why? Does that mean that the new model that many hip hop artists are utilizing—starting their own labels to remain completely independent and to retain complete creative control—will remain unappealing to black women?

I know a few ladies who could give even me a run for my money when it comes to trivia about A Tribe Called Quest or A Bizarre Ride to the Pharcyde. However, these same women give me completely blank looks when I mention Blackalicious or 3rd Eye Vision. I would really like to know when that changed. Where did the break come? Admittedly, artistic hip hop is not as easy to find today as it was 15 years ago but every other demographic has a small group that follows it. Why not black women?


“Rap ain’t about busting caps or fucking bitches/ It’s about fluency with rhyming ingenuity.”
- Del the Funky Homosapien (of Hieroglyphics), “At the Helm”


One reason I truly find this such an interesting phenomenon is that the mainstream rap world tends to be extremely disrespectful of women. Yet I don’t have nearly the trouble finding females who can quote many of the lyrics that disparage them that I do in finding women who can sing along to the lyrics that lift them up.

(Uma at 1:15am on November 12th, 2007: are you really wondering? there isn't much to love hip-hop wise if you are a Black woman.)


“Life is love, my wife is love/ Impossible not to write this love, won’t fight this love.”
- Key Kool (of the Visionaries), “If You Can’t Say Love


(Sean at 12:56pm yesterday: It seems more like hip-hop doesn't like black women, not vice versa.)


“There ain’t no love in your life? Then that’s some sad ass shit/ This woman I got? She’s the bad ass shit. That’s no exaggeration, man, I’m saying she’s the truth/ Other women walk by, they all bow and salute.”
- Lyrics Born, “I Can’t Wait for Your Love (Limited Time Offer)”


On Thursday, November 14, I’ll head back downtown to the Molotov Lounge to see one of Lyrics Born’s Quannum brethren: Gift of Gab of Blackalicious. There’s a chance that he’ll drop this line from “Purest Love”:

“The two realest cats I know? My two older brothers.
The most beautiful woman in the galaxy? My mother.
The strongest black women raising kids alone? My sisters.
The best part of my future is my present love interest.”


Unfortunately, I have a feeling that there won’t be too many black women in the audience to appreciate those words.

But if there are, you can be sure that I’ll take notice.

NBA 2007-08

Another NBA season is upon us. The entrance to this year is quite interesting, probably the most compelling that I can recall. Think about all these things:

• the Mavericks flameout in the first round;
• the fallout from the Stoudemire/Diaw suspensions;
• the referee scandal;
• the lingering questions over Kobe's situation;
• the new look Celtics;
• they hype over Oden and Durant (and the subsequent punch in the gut that Blazers' fans have to experience).

There are so many compelling storylines that have happened since last year's playoffs through now that it's created more anticipation for the season (albeit not all good). Recall that two seasons ago, the big story to start the season was David Stern enforcing a dress code. Last season it was introducing a new ball. I would say that there's a little bit more to currently digest.

And that's a good thing too. Because it's pretty difficult to be a Mavericks' fan right now. I mean, I still love my team but the ghosts of the past two years are impossible to ignore. How can I properly enjoy this season? The Mavs could flirt with 70 wins, produce the MVP and coach of the year, make it to the Finals...and not a single Dallas fan could be blamed for not really getting excited. We've been down all of those roads the past two years only to experience heartbreak. Twice.

That has also been compounded by my move from Dallas to Austin during the NBA offseason. I took it for granted but at least when I was in Dallas I was never alone in my misery. After the last two playoffs there was always a shoulder to cry on. The sympathy doesn't extend quite as far here in the state capital. Sure there are some fellow Mavericks' fans here but I see a lot more people sporting Tim Duncan jerseys than I do those of Dirk Nowitzki. One of my coworkers is a diehard Spurs' fan and he never ceases to needle me about the Spurs dominance over the Mavericks. He seems to take particular delight in the loss of last season. It irks me just because I can't respond. What am I supposed to do, bring up 2006 Conference Semifinals? Then he'll just turn around and point out the collapse in Finals.

One thing I don't get is where the hatred that Spurs' fans have for the Mavericks originates. Ok, it's a rivalry, I get that. But it really only became that way over the past seven years or so really. During one conversation my coworker and I were having, I told him that I had rooted for the Rockets during their Finals' runs in the mid-90s and I had also rooted for the Spurs during their first two titles ('99, '03). I rooted for them because they were Texas teams and if MY team couldn't win it all, then I wanted another state team to do so. He responded that there was no way that he'd ever root for the Mavericks (I took note that he did NOT also mention the Rockets...interesting). Initially, I find that perplexing...why would I, along with many other Dallas fans that I know, so willingly root for other Texas teams when the feeling is in no way reciprocated? After thinking about it somewhat, I think I may have stumbled upon at least part of the reason.

Although I never really though of it as so, Dallas is apparently Texas' shining beacon to the rest of the world (as you read this, bear in mind that I am from Fort Worth not Dallas; all things being equal, given a choice between which city to live, I'd pick Fort Worth every single time). Houston is larger and more populated and San Antonio has a more famous legacy, but Dallas is the city that was given its own television soap opera. Dallas is home to more corporations, more millionaires, more...glitz. In recent years, Austin's popularity has grown exponentially but that's mainly because it offers such a radical alternative to the rest of the state. As I type, I'm sitting in a hotel in London. During my stay here, anytime someone has asked my where I'm from, and I reply, "Texas," invariably they mention JR and Bobby (a show that last aired 16 years ago). "Dallas" (both the city and the show) IS--for all intents and purposes--Texas to the rest of the world. As such, it suffers from Marsha Brady Syndrome (Dallas, Dallas, Dallas!) that I'm sure is not particularly appreciated by the residents of Texas' other major cities. And it doesn't help when you have bombastic owners such as Mark Cuban and Jerry Jones running the city's key sports' franchises. So while the attack from fellow Texans stings, I think that I can at least understand it.

I'm taking a different approach to the NBA this season. For the first time in years, I won't be playing fantasy basketball. Initially, this wasn't a conscious decision. I had planned to play but the first league that I was going to be a part of wanted to hold the draft on Sunday, October 28. That's all well and good except that because I was out of the country the draft would have started at around 12:30AM my time and I would have had to pay 15 pounds for internet access (kinda hard to explain why I'm expensing $30 for internet use at midnight). So I decided to opt out of the league. Then the more I thought about it, the more I realized that maybe it would be refreshing to not play in a league. Now I can just focus on rooting for the Mavericks, instead of also hoping that Tim Duncan goes for 35 and 17 against them since he's my starting PF/C.

The main thing that concerns me is the uneventful summer that Mark Cuban and Donnie Nelson had. Is keeping this team relatively the same really the right thing to do? Is the team's psyche strong enough to bounce back after the past two years? We shall see. One thing I'm not worried about is how Dirk bounces back. That may surprise people who don't follow the Mavs regularly, since they've most likely labeled him a choker. Look, if people want to harp on Dirk for the times he's fallen short, fine. Yes, he was unable to make the proper adjustments against the Warriors last season and he melted against the Heat the previous season (along with his entire team, I might add). But why is it that his critics are so quick to point out those two instances yet conveniently overlook his entire career up to that point? Up until the Finals, Dirk's 2006 playoffs were amazing. He hit clutch shots against the Grizzlies in the first round sweep, he hit THE clutch shot against the Spurs in the second round against the Spurs and he torched the Suns in the Western Conference Finals. And it's not like that was the only time he's ever done that. For his career Dirk has averaged 22.3 ppg and 8.6 rpg during the regular season. During the playoffs, he's averaged 25.2 and 11.1. That means he plays even better in the playoffs when the competition is better, the play is rougher and the defense is more likely to key in on him. Yet he's considered a choker. Actually, that's not particularly fair, since really the only people I've really heard call him that are fans of other teams and Charley Rosen, whose opinion can never be taken seriously. By and large, most sports' writers and commentators seem to actually appreciate Dirk's talents.

Finally, the big rumor around Dallas is the possible acquisition of Kobe Bryant. I've heard a lot of people poo-pooing the possibility but I think there's a greater chance of it happening than people realize. It all depends on if Kobe REALLY wants out of LA. If he does, he's already said there are only three teams that he's willing to go to: Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix. Most people automatically consider the Bulls the front runners since they are in the Eastern Conference, where the Lakers would prefer to send Kobe. Here's the main problem: in order to get him, they'd have to give up so much (probably Luol Deng, either Ben Gordon or Kirk Hinrich, either Tyrus Thomas or Joakim Noah, and probably Ben Wallace to make the contracts work) that they may not be anywhere near as competitive, even with Kobe. And that's where Kobe comes in; he has a no trade clause. So if he sees the offer, thinks that it would leave the Bulls too short on talent to help him win, he could could just refuse to agree to the trade.

Phoenix is another option. They could probably offer the best return for the Lakers since they could send two top-30 players in Shawn Marion and Leandro Barbaso along with the requisite contract fodder. The issue here would be from the team's side. Would Jerry Buss and Mitch Kupchak be willing to send Kobe to the team that is currently their biggest division rival? I'm not sure.

Which might make Dallas a nice compromise. The Mavs could put a package together around Josh Howard, Devin Harris and Erick Dampier. That's in the same ballpark as what the Lakers could receive from either of the other two teams. The Mavericks and the Lakers are in the same conference but not the same division (plus by trading Kobe, the Lakers would be acknowledging that they are in rebuilding mode anyway). Would I be interested in that? I'd hate to see J-How and Devin leave but if it meant bringing in Kobe, I'd be all for it.

Go Mavs.

The Greatest Albums Ever (the 9/04/2007, 8:49PM CST Edition)

Recently, I've started listening to my CDs a lot more. It wasn't a conscious decision; rather it was something that I had to start doing out of necessity.

One of the first things that I noticed about Austin after moving here: no sports radio. Specifically, no ESPN radio. So with no Mike & Mike to listen to on the way to work, and no Galloway and Company to hear on the way home that automatically eliminated any chance whatsoever that I would be listening to the radio. At least until I finally get Sirius.

So that meant that I was relegated to listening to my music. In and of itself, that was nothing new. I listen to music all the time, at home, on the go and in the car. But that was far and away music that I had compiled together myself. At home, it was on my computer. On the go, it was off of my iPod. In the car, I'd listen to mp3 CDs that I'd put together. But that last option isn't currently available to me anymore. In my previous car, I had an mp3 CD player so I could just throw a hundred-something songs onto a CD and be content for a while. But now I have a new car that doesn't have that. And the CD player is one of those funky sizes that prevents me from just going to Tweeter and replacing it.

So with all of these options unavailable to me, I have had no choice but to actually listen to good ol' fashioned, original, artist-made albums. And doing so has caused me to realize something: there are some good albums out there. I also realized something else: there aren't that many.

What I mean is this: there are some talented musical artists in the world. Some of these talented artists are at times able to put together a few quality verses. Sometimes those quality verses are able to be matched with truly great sounds. And sometimes that combination of words and sounds turn into great songs. But to do that several times on one compact disc...that is truly a rare feat. Some of my favorite artists have never, in my opinion, put out a CD that is truly great from beginning to end. So what I want to do now is acknowledge five CDs that I think truly are great. And even though I titled this The Greatest Albums Ever, that's not really accurate. I'm only counting albums that have been released since I was old enough to truly appreciate it at the time of its release. So no Thriller here. And neither am I counting greatest hits or best of compilations, which is why Bob Marley's Legend, etc doesn't make it.

(By the way, I was originally going to title this post The Greatest Hip Hop Albums Ever. But then I realized that, for me, that'd be redundant.)


1992, The Pharcyde, Bizarre Ride II the Pharcyde

I've said before that more so than anyone else, Freestyle Fellowship deserves credit for spearheading the underground hip hop movement. And while I still believe that, it was their Project Blowed brethren that I feel actually put out the best quality product. The fact that this album did not go multiplatinum is truly a travesty. This is the only album I've ever heard where I can listen to all the skits over and over again and still enjoy them. It was also probably the first album I heard where not only do the emcees not take themselves seriously, they are actually self-deprecating. And the chemistry between all four of them cannot be touched; from Fatlip's more traditional flow to Slim Kid Tre's singsongy style to the helium-inflected voices of Imani and Booty Brown, it all just comes together perfectly.




1994, Nas, Illmatic

This was the first street album that I heard that made me really pay attention to what was being said there. Prior to this, I pretty much stuck exclusively to more abstract stuff like A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul, Outkast, etc. Sure, I dug Scarface and I liked a few songs from The Chronic, but Nas grabbed my attention in a way that neither 'Face nor Dr. Dre had been able. I actually listened to what he had to say and I felt that, in some respects, I understood and could relate. Even if I maybe really couldn't.




1996, De La Soul, Stakes is High

In 1995 I got my undergrad degree in hip hop from LPG's The Earthworm. A year later, De La Soul gave me my Ph.D. This album was different from anything they'd done in the past. They weren't being goofy, they weren't acting silly, they weren't making jokes. They were...pissed off. Hip hop was going commercial and...They. Did. Not. Like. It. This album helped open my eyes to the difference between the culture and the business. It also helps that this album introduced the world to Mos Def and contains my favorite ever verse from Common on "The Bizness."




1999, Soundbombing II

This is simply the greatest mixtape ever released. First is the fact that it's a collection of some of the greatest emcees from all over the country on one album. Not only are they all great, but they're very diverse in their techniques and subject matter. Eminem, Mos Def, Talib Kweli and Common are all here before the mainstream media really knew who any of them were. Second, it was put out by a label, Rawkus, that knew enough to leave these guys alone and let them all do their thing. Finally, and most importantly, it was all tied together by two world-class DJs: J-Rocc and DJ Babu of the World Famous Beat Junkies. I don't know how long I'd had this album or how many times I'd listened to it before it dawned on me: "Wait a second, none of these tracks have anything to do with one another." But because the DJs laced it together so tightly with dope mixing and even doper scratching, I had never noticed. And frankly, even when I did, it didn't matter. Probably the most startling thing about this album is how much it stood out. Soundbombings I pales in comparison and Soundbombing III just plain sucks. I'll never understand why Rawkus didn't allow J-Rocc and Babu back for the third one.


2002, Blackalicious, Blazing Arrow

I liked Nia. I thought it was a fairly good album by a fairly good dj/mc combination. But nothing there prepared me for the transedence that is Blazing Arrow. Although I consider this to be the best hip hop album of the 21st centtury, tt's unfair to limit this to the genre of "hip hop" because it is so much more. It blends so many different styles that there really is no name for it. If I had to think of one adjective to describe it, it would be the inadequate word "soulful." What's probably most interesting to me about Blackalicious is that their next album, The Craft, is probably Blazing Arrow's equal. I give BA the edge though because it was much more revolutionary upon its release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH2bqTc88ns


I can already think of one album that I wished I could have listed. So I may be doing this again soon...

SiCKO

To call Michael Moore a divisive figure would be putting it extremely mildly. Even someone like me, who quite often agrees with many of his points, at times gets tired of the contemptuous way he often presents said points. At the same time, I find it interesting how people who disagree with him often do exactly what they accuse him of: ignoring or hiding the facts. Instead of addressing his points they'll make remarks about his appearance, or talk about his "followers" or accuse him of being anti-American. Or my favorite: they'll accuse him of being hypocritical because he's wealthy (which I find interesting because, as far as I know, he's never said there's anything wrong with being wealthy; he seems to disapprove of ultimate wealth at all costs because that invariably leaves a portion of the population in a perpetual state of poverty (alliteration rules).

I think SiCKO is quite possibly Moore's greatest achievement yet. I've appreciated his self-appointed mission since I first had to study Roger & Me in college. And more so than any movie in history, Fahrenheit 9/11 made documentaries popular and relevant to the general population. But SiCKO is the first time that we get the impression that he actually cares more about the people that he supposedly represents than he does about the cause du jour that he's championing. He also does an excellent job of putting faces on this particular epidemic. It is one thing to rationalize private health care when one is just looking at numbers and statistics. It is something else entirely when you have to enter the lives of the people who have to live with their particular ailment.

To be sure, Moore continues to use his most common magic trick of asking you to focus on what is in his right hand while ignoring what's in his left: he never talks about the taxes paid by people in socialized health care systems; for all we know, the doctor in London that he interviews might be the wealthiest practitioner in all of the United Kingdom; and I don't care how he tries to make it look, I can't imagine that there is a large percentage of people who would rather go to a hospital in Cuba than they would one in the United States.

That being said, there are many facts that he presents that cannot be denied, no matter how strong a critic of Moore one is:

- in the nations he visits, if you're sick, you will have access to a doctor for virtually no out of pocket cost;
- child mortality rates in the United States are higher than those in Cuba.
- the United States government has ignored the health conditions that have developed in September 11 volunteer workers.

Moore's most significant point in SiCKO is this: in a land where health care is private, the goal is not to actually help people but to make a profit. Thus there is significant incentive for insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, lobbyists and congressmen to turn away those in need (or make it extremely expensive to get help) rather than spend the money to assist them. While many politicians continue to preach the evil of socialized health care, the fact is that it works in other nations. And, as he points out, why is this such an issue when these same politicians seem to have absolutely no problem whatsoever with socialized police systems, fire departments, postal services and public education?

In the film, one of the Americans living in France echoes a line from V for Vendetta: France has the number one health care system in the world (as ranked by the World Health Organization) because there the government is afraid of its people. The United States is able to get away with being the only industrialized nation in the world without universal health care because here, people are afraid of the government. Things are likely to remain stagnant until that changes.


"What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and moving/ They don't gotta burn the books, they'll just remove them."
- Rage Against the Machine

Listenin'

Why why why do we use so many words to say nothing?
Check it, when do we stop talking and start listening (why)
Why do you say you follow and then try to lead the mission?
Who gave you permission to create your own rendition?
And then speak about it to those who don't know quite yet
And never give a second thought to the effect
See, it's your type of Christian who scares off my friends
And then tells them that it's Satan keeping them from coming in.

--Dax Reynosa

End of the Road for the Mavs

Well, that was a quick ending.

First things first, I give much respect and would like to congratulate the Golden State Warriors. There is absolutely no questioning that they were the better team this series. I said from the beginning of the series that the Warriors were a perfect storm to overcome the Mavericks:

- They were gelling at the right time, with Baron Davis coming back from injury and Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington learning to become a part of the team after they were traded there in midseason.

- They had the perfect players to defend Dallas' isolation sets. There was no way for the Mavs to use screens to set up mismatches. A Mavs' player could go from being covered by Harrington to Jackson to Matt Barnes to Jason Richardson to Andris Biedrins and Golden State lost virtually nothing in terms of size or athleticism. Even if taller players ended up being covered by Davis, he was strong and athletic enough to give them problems.

- And, of course, they had the perfect coach to put everything together. It was bad enough for the Mavericks that Don Nelson is probably the best coach in the history of the NBA at creating mismatches. Then you have to add to that that he knows the weaknesses of the Mavericks better than any other coach out there. Then you have to add to that the revenge factor he had against Mark Cuban. When you add up everything, you have to wonder if Dallas ever really had a chance.

But again, take nothing away from Golden State. They were hungrier, they set the tone, they just flat out played better. And good gracious, those fans. After watching the fans in Golden State, combined with what I've seen from the fans in Sacramento, it's pretty apparent to me that North Cali has the best fans in the NBA. To use the local vernacular, those fans are hella dope. I wish them the best of luck the rest of the playoffs.


I have to wonder about the future of the Mavericks as an organization. They are in one of the most unique situations I've ever seen in basketball, maybe even sports period. To recap their past two seasons:

- their average record has been 63.5 wins and 18.5 losses

- they have one Western Conference title, one Southwest Division title and one season with the best record in the NBA

- they're led by a man who won Coach of the Year one year and finished third another

- they have a player who finished third in the MVP voting and was was All-NBA first team, and will presumably be All-NBA first team again and possibly be the league's MVP

- they have two All-Star players


Ten years ago if you had told me that that was what the future held for my Mavericks, I would have taken it without even asking whose soul we had to sell. Yet with all that success, the way that the past two seasons have ended has made it painfully clear that Dallas is lacking...something. Maybe it's a few somethings.

While they weren't necessarily beaten the same way the past two years, the one thing that the Miami Heat has in common with the Warriors is a guard who was quick enough to penetrate Dallas' defense and strong enough to finish at the basket. The Mavs simply had no way to stop that. Devin Harris, bless his heart, is quick enough to stay with both Davis and Dwyane Wade and he's a perfectly willing and able defender but those two guys could both overpower him with relative ease.

The opposite end of the floor is where we find a true myriad of problems: no true point guard to initiate the offense and no low post presence. The crazy thing is that I could live with those problems. Avery Johnson found ways to overcome those deficiencies. What really bugged me was the way the team responded in the face of adversity. Despite Avery's demands that the team play better defense, despite his insistence on proper offensive execution, when times got tough for the Mavericks they would fall back into their old, jump-shooting tendencies. That's what I find most troubling. It could be overlooked in the 2006 Finals because there were other factors in play (the refs) but there are no such excuses this year. Plain and simply, the Mavericks team that won 67 games in the regular season fell apart in the playoffs. To me, that is simply a lack of heart (excluded from that criticism is Josh Howard, Devin Harris and DeSagana Diop) and that is inexcusable. It would be different if they played up to their potential and lost. I can appreciate a hard fought battle. But when you do so much to hurt yourself how am I supposed to root for you?

This makes it an interesting time to be a Mavericks fan. How are we possibly supposed to approach next season? What if the team flirts with 70 wins again? So what? We've been there before. What happens if the Mavs make it to the Finals? And? We've already seen that happen. Prove something else to me.

That makes this offseason very interesting indeed. You can't completely gut a 67-win team, can you? But at the same time it's quite apparent that changes do need to be made. Let's see what happens.

The most shocking thing to me this postseason was discovering how much people outside of Dallas hate the Mavericks. In reading message boards it seems to me that other than Kobe Bryant and maybe Ron Artest, Dirk Werner Nowitzki might be the most hated basketball player in the NBA. Artest's history speaks for itself. And I get, although I don't agree, why people hate Kobe. But for the life of me, I could not figure out why there is so much animosity for Dirk. So I asked around and started getting answers that really didn't make much sense to me. A lot of people spoke about how arrogant and proud Dirk is.

I found that fascinating because Dirk could possibly be the most unassuming player in the NBA. He never talks trash (like I said in my previous post, what he said about the Finals last year was an indictment on his team not the Heat), he doesn't beat his chest, he's never been anything other than humble in interviews. He even turns down endorsement opportunities just because they're not his thing. If anything, Dirk's rather boring and shy. But the deeper I dug, the more I began to understand. People don't really hate Dirk. They hate the Mavericks. And the reason they hate the Mavericks can be summed up in two words. The first one is "Mark." The second is "Cuban." And for that, I really can't blame anyone. Despite his relative silence this season, any holes that Cuban has dug have definitely been done by he alone. He went from being a maverick (no pun intended) owner whose enthusiasm and passion was a welcome change from the usual, boring sports' owners to being a loud-mouthed, trash talking lightning rod that everyone loved to hate. His own players had to ask him to shut up at the beginning of the season. So somewhere last night, as the game clock was counting down to all zeros, David Stern was doing a happy little dance because he won't have to deal with Cuban for the remainder of the playoffs.

Hoop Dreams (NBA edition)

I think that in many ways, the internet has ruined the concept of being a fan. Go to any sports' message board and you're bound to see the following message somewhere: "[So and so team ] sucks!" That's it. That's the entirety of the message. That isht infuriates me. I mean it's one thing to make legitimate criticisms. When people say that the Dallas Mavericks choked in the Finals last year, I don't ever get defensive because it's true. My Mavs were in an unfamiliar locale and they allowed the situation to overwhelm them. (And by the way, saying that the Dallas gave away the series is not a diss to the Heat. I'm not sure how Dwyane got that interpretation. Does he really think that the Mavericks team that he played against is the same Mavs team that played the Spurs in the Western Conference semifinals? Take nothing away from the Heat, they won it fair and square. But the Mavs did choke.) What really irritates me are the nonsensical ramblings. It hurts my head to read some of the things people are emboldened to say due to their internet anonymity.

On the other hand, the internet also gives me an opportunity to send out my wisdom. I've been reading all the expert recaps on the season and their predictions for the playoffs and I have decided that it's my turn to chime in. And while no one has actually asked for my input, they should have. So I'm here to correct that.

First up, I'll handle the regular season awards. Not all of them, just the ones that have interested me this year. For example, I couldn't care less who wins Rookie of the Year this year. I have found myself caring less and less about that award since more and more high school and freshmen players have been coming into the League. Every once in a while there is an anomaly, like 2003-04 where there is actually an interesting group of rookies playing significantly. But more often than not it's more like the 2000-01 season. Do you realize that Mike Miller won Rookie of the Year by averaging 11.9 points per game? That alone should have caused fans to force their teams to not draft anyone who had not played college basketball for at least three years. I also don't care about the Most Improved Player award because it almost always goes to someone who has a career year and then proceeds to come back down to earth. That's nothing to get excited about. On to the awards...

(By the way, with one exception, not a single candidate comes from the Eastern Conference.)


SIXTH MAN OF THE YEAR
There are only three possible candidates for this award and they just happen to come from the teams with the three best records in the NBA. That's not a coincidence, I think. Leandro Barbosa for Phoenix, Manu Ginobili for San Antonio and Jerry Stackhouse for Dallas. All three of them could be starting for their teams and all three can take over games when necessary. However, my vote in this category goes to Barbosa. He's a truer sixth man than the other two (if that makes any sense) and he's more integral to Phoenix' gameplan than either Stackhouse or Ginobili is to their respective teams. And if you glance at his season stats, you would assume that he's a starter. Although he supposedly averages four assists per game. I question that because I really don't think I've ever seen him pass the ball.


DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR
This award tends to go to pivotmen much more often than those who play on the wings and in the backcourt. I used to think that this was really unfair. After all, the further away from the basket you are, the more energy you have to expend on defense by chasing your man around the court. Plus it's harder for stats to quantify your defensive impact; a high number blocked shots obviously indicate a defensive presence, but a lot of steals might just mean you're a bad defender who gambles a lot. But then I realized that post men don't just have to play defense on the person they're guarding but they also have to clean up mistakes by their teammates. I figure that's probably a harder task.

There are a lot of worthy candidates for this award this year: Bruce Bowen, Marcus Camby, Tyson Chandler, Tim Duncan, Shawn Marion. Camby and Marion arguably have the most difficult tasks because they have to play defense for teams that aren't very good at it. However, if I had to pick between the two I would go with Camby because at least Marion has another great defender on his team in Raja Bell. Camby is pretty much the ONLY defender for the Nuggets. I also thought that Bowen and Duncan cancel out each other. Chandler is having his best season ever and maybe one day will become a healthy Marcus Camby. But I kept coming back to one thing: Tim Duncan sets the tone and anchors the best defensive unit in all of pro basketball. Yeah, Bowen is a pit bull but he can get away with being so tenacious because he knows that he still has someone who can clean up any miscues he has. Add to that the fact that even though Gregg Popovich has limited Duncan's minutes, he's actually given him more responsibility on defense than he ever has before. That was enough to convince me.


COACH OF THE YEAR
In the face of rumors about his job termination, Sam Mitchell guided his Toronto Raptors team to the Atlantic Division title, third place in the Eastern Conference and a playoff spot. Avery Johnson took a 60-win team that made it to the Finals and made them even better, with one of the best regular seasons in NBA history. Jerry Sloan molded a young group into a unit that looks like it might contend with the best years that Stockton and Malone ever had. But my vote for Coach of the Year goes to Jeff Van Gundy. In the toughest division in the NBA and without the services of the best center in basketball for 32 games, he coached the Rockets to 52 wins and homecourt advantage in the first round.


MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
Ah, now here's the big one. This category requires a little bit more discussion. First of all, the NBA is purposely ambiguous about what the award is exactly supposed to mean. They leave that decision up to the voters. That's intentional, of course. By leaving the criteria so indefinite, it causes more controversy, which begets more discussion, which in turn begets more attention for the League. That clever Stern. Anyway, I'm going to attempt to explain how I see the award.

First of all, it's a regular season award. There's a reason that the NBA names a Finals MVP. The NBA MVP award should only consist of what happens during the 82 game regular schedule. However, what that also means is that all 82 games are equal. If someone has a slow start to the year but then comes on stronger in the second half, that doesn't automatically bump them past someone who has had a strong season from the beginning. Secondly, it should not be judged in historical context. It's the MVP of this season and the season should be looked at in a vacuum. If winning a third straight MVP means that a certain player will join the ranks of a handful of Hall of Famers, so be it. If he earned it, he earned it. Third, the stupidest argument I can imagine is, "Well, if you took Player A off of his team they'd still make it to the playoffs but if you took Player B off of his team they wouldn't win 20 games." Look, if you took the best player off of any team that team would probably get worse (Ewing Theory notwithstanding). That's the reason he's the best player on the team, genius! And why should a player be docked for his owner/GM/coach being able to surround him with better talent than another team? That doesn't make any sense. Finally, what does "valuable" mean? In any kind of sport, the object is to beat your opponent. Thus, the most valuable commodity in sports are wins. I don't agree that the best player on the best team should necessarily be the front runner but I do think that candidates from the top five or six teams should get much stronger consideration.

In my mind, Kobe Bryant is solidly in fifth place. Halfway through the season, when the Lakers were one of the top four teams in the conference, he was neck and neck with the other front runners. However, since then his team went on to lose much more often than they won. At one point Kobe went on a scoring flurry that brought him back to the forefront of the MVP discussion but it wasn't enough to lift his team high enough. If the Lakers had somehow managed to finish in the top four it would have been difficult to argue against Kobe. But as late as the last day of the regular season they were in danger of falling to the eight seed.Yes, there were injuries to contend with, but you don't make excuses for that in MVP talk. By the way, post Shaq, what has Kobe Bryant done in the postseason that Tracy McGrady hasn't?

That brings us to the second tier of MVP talk. Both of these guys led their teams to 50+ wins. Both of these guys play in Texas. One of these guys had a solid, veteran team around him. The other had to deal with the loss of an All-NBA teammate and become the do-everything player for his team. When his career is over, no one will look be able to look at this season and say that it's one of Tim Duncan's best. But when you consider his more limited playing time, combined with his greater responsibilities on defense (and he was already a great defender), combined with San Antonio's strong finish (yet again) combined with the best seasons by his team's chief rivals (Dallas and Houston) since he entered the NBA, you have to give Duncan some credit. McGrady had his best ever all-around season. With Yao Ming being out for so many games, he was able to put the Rockets on his shoulders and lead them to homecourt advantage in the first round (the first time in his career). His scoring is down from three or four years ago but he had his best ever season in assists and bought into Coach Van Gundy's demand for defense.

The MVP award belongs to either Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki. Quite frankly, it's about as dead even as it can get. Nash had his best season ever: just off his career high in scoring, career bests in assists, field goal shooting, and three point shooting (but like I said, I'm not comparing his season to any of his pasts ones for purposes of MVP talk). He also led the most entertaining offense in the NBA and for the second time in three years his Suns won over 60 games. Like McGrady, Dirk sacrificed some of his scoring to become a better all around player. All of his shooting percentages are career highs (he joined Nash, Larry Bird and Reggie Miller as the only players to ever shoot 50% from the field, 40% from three point range and 90% from the free throw line); he also had his career best in assists (and one NBA analyst estimates that Dirk leads the league in passes that lead to assists).

Personally, I give the slightest edge to Dirk. Nash led the Suns to 61 wins but Dirk led the Mavericks to the sixth best record of all time. And while I've heard some people say that he doesn't make his teammates better, I disagree. In addition to his aforementioned increased passing, the Mavericks have become better because he allows Avery Johnson to treat him the same way that Gregg Popovich treats Duncan. That is, despite being the best player on the team and despite being the hardest working, he allows the coach to treat him the harshest. When the rest of the team sees this happening to their best player, that in turn causes them to work harder. That approach led the Spurs to three championships and the Mavericks hope it will lead them to their first.


There's no way I can objectively talk about the post-season. Once the games start I'll be bleeding Maverick blue, white and throwback green. But I can discuss a few things.

First of all, the East is weak. That has been discussed ad nauseum. If Chicago had won their last game and captured the two-seed, I would have picked them to win the conference. But since they lost and fell to the fifth-seed, I just don't see it. They would have to beat Shaq, Wade and Miami in the first round, then beat Detroit in the second before even making it to the conference Finals. I can see them beating one of those teams in a seven-game series but not both back to back. So I guess that Detroit will represent the East. Here's the problem: Flip Saunders seems like a nice enough guy, but does anyone trust him to be able to out-coach any of the guys leading the Western Conference playoff teams? And any team that is using Chris Webber in the clutch...well, his track record speaks for itself.

Hey, you know how everyone says the talent in the West is so superior to the talent in the East? That same principle applies to NBA broadcasts. The talent on TNT is ridiculously superior to ABC/ESPN. It's not even close. True enough, TNT has Ernie, Kenny and Charles. Those three alone would beat out any competition. But it's also play by play guys, color commentators and sideline reporters. The only time I can actually enjoy an ESPN broadcast is if it's being called by Mike Tirico and Greg Anthony and/or Tim Legler. Anyone else...not so much. Let's put it this way: if Cheryl Miller were to switch over to ESPN, she'd automatically become their best sideline reporter. Not a good look, dog. Especially for the "world wide leader in sports."

The three best teams in the NBA all reside in the West. People say that Phoenix' style cannot win in the playoffs. Considering that they've made it to the Conference Finals for two straight years while not being at full strength, I would have to disagree with that ideology. I think that they can win it all but I don't think that they will this year. And that's because I don't know if they have the depth to beat out the Lakers (who will give them everything that they have), the Spurs (most likely), the Mavericks (most likely, but even if the Rockets made it here, I'd worry some) and then the Pistons or whoever represented the East. That's asking a LOT from essentially seven players.

I'm predicting a Western Conference showdown between the I-35 rivals. They've played the best basketball over the second half of the season and they have the best combination of depth and playoff experience.

Guess who I'm rooting for.

Just some of my favorite Def Poems...

INQ- "When Hip Hop Was Fun"




Flowmentalz- "They Call Me Drama"




Steve Coleman- "I Wanna Hear a Poem"




Shihan- "This Type Love"




Yellow Rage- "Listen, Asshole"




and, of course...


Taylor Mali- "What Teachers Make"

Politics & Bullsh-t

Political arguments always amuse me. They quite often infuriate me as well, but they're usually good for a chuckle. I consider myself politically liberal. Not "very liberal" and not "moderate" just "liberal." (Facebook, what!) I don't get this response all that often when the subject is broached but it's the one that amuses/infuriates me the most: "How can you be a Christian and be a liberal?"

Ok, so let's examine this together: Christians worship a poor, homeless carpenter who kicked it with outcasts and told the political leaders of his time that they had the law but they was usin' it wrong; they had made it a hot line, he wanted to make it a hot song. What exactly about that screams out "conservative?"

Or here's another way to look at it. Today, in the year 2007, let's imagine that there was a man in...oh, let's say the Middle East. And let's say that this man developed a reputation as a great leader. Furthermore, though he never actually claimed or taught this himself, let's say that this man's followers began to believe that he would lead them in an uprising to overthrow their oppressors. Knowing what we know about the political world today, is it out of the question to say that this man just might be executed by certain, more powerful nations?

I have yet to hear someone actually respond to either of those inquiries.

See, here's the thing about my political beliefs that most people tend to forget about theirs: I know that they aren't right. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in them, it just means that I realize that they aren't infallible. Politics are a type of philosophy. And "philosophy" is just a fancy-schmancy word for, "Well, here's what I think." I don't deceive myself. I am fully aware that the reason I am liberal is because I grew up black and poor. Either one of those is a strike against me in society; with the two combined...well, I'm definitely fighting an uphill battle. But because I grew up that way, that led me to a political belief that would seek to institute change, hence my liberal leanings. I realize that had I grown up white instead of black, well off instead of poor, in Westover Hills instead of Forest Hill, I would very likely have a rather conservative political stance. Because in that scenario the status quo would have been pretty darned nice to me and I would want to keep it that way.

But I didn't so I don't. So now I listen to Rage Against the Machine, Ozomatli and Immortal Technique so that I can get all angry and righteous with all of my fellow leftists.


TITLE TAKEN
from the last mixtape album Frankie Cutlass made before he became a Christian

When Heaven Scrapes the Pavement

(Love's Not)

Brushed by angels' wings that I shed in a change in me
Saw Christ on the cross and I realized what pain should be
I ain't delusional but...man, how beautiful
I take it and relate it to y'all and make it musical
Heaven scrapes the pavement everywhere
From the Western hemisphere to third world you can get It there
I'll take better care of neighbors and strangers
And rappers and DJs and breakers and painters
Of my wife and my daughters, my friends and my fans
God standing next to you wherever you stand
In the eyes of a child or in the eyes of a vagrant
That's when Heaven scrapes the pavement.

--manchild

Hoop Dreams (college edition)

- This past weekend signaled the end of the college basketball season. This is how much I enjoyed it: for the first time that I can think of, I decided to watch a women's basketball game that did not feature the Baylor Lady Bears or Diana Taurasi. I wanted to watch the UNC-Tennessee Final Four semifinal because I could name exactly two players in women's basketball and they were both playing in this game. I knew about UNC's point guard Ivory Latta because she seriously seems like she would be one of the five coolest people on the planet to hang out with. And I knew about Tennessee's Candace Parker because she is probably the most hyped female basketball player since Cheryl Miller and because she's, you know...hot.

So Sunday evening I sat down to watch the game. For most of the first half I was telling myself that I would never do this again. The game seemed like it would be terrible. Both teams displayed a lot of energy but most of it was being exercised on the defensive end. At one point I think the two teams had combined to shoot something like 3 for 26. I was bored out of my mind. It was like watching the Spurs-Pistons Finals from a couple of years ago. But with less talent and athleticism. And no dunking. It didn't help that both Latta and Parker got into early foul trouble and had to sit for most of the first half.

There were some bright spots. When she had a chance to, Candace Parker showed that she is definitely the truth. Tennessee lists her as a guard/forward/center and she actually can do it all. At one point she grabbed a defensive rebound, led the fast break, did this behind the back crossover and scored with a lefty floater. I have never seen any basketball player, male or female, do that. She might cause me to actually watch WNBA games whenever she decided to go.

However, the best part of watching this game was discovering Tennessee point guard Shannon Bobbitt. She is absolutely adorable. Yeah, I mean adorable as in, "Yo, shorty is cute." But I also mean that watching her play is an absolute joy. She's listed at 5'2, which not only made her the shortest player on the court (she's at least four inches shorter than Ivory Latta, the next shortest player in the game) but apparently she's also the shortest player in the history of the Southeastern Conference to be offered a basketball scholarship. But what spoke the most volume was her attitude on the court. She is just a ball of energy. She actually made Latta seem stoic. On top of that, she refused to back down from her. Even though she is a JUCO transfer playing her first season of D1 basketball, she spent most of the game jawing back and forth with the All-American. And her game is sick too. Ol' girl has got some ridiculous handles. At one point I decided to Google her and I discovered that she's from Manhattan. Makes sense. I'm guessing that she's spent a few afternoons at the Rucker.

Anyway, Candace Parker and Shannon Bobbitt have become my favorite tandem in women's basketball. And it's not just because they're the only tandem I know of in women's basketball. They're just both fun to watch. They probably lead the nation in intimidation. Bobbitt is constantly talking trash and Parker's post-blocked shot staredown is the current equivalent of Dikembe's finger wave. Two days after they beat UNC, I watched them beat Rutgers for the 2007 National Championship. Assuming Parker returns to Tennessee next year, there is a 100% chance I will be following the Lady Vols.


- Greg Oden's Buckeyes fell short in their attempt to win the national championship. And honestly, I think that is probably the best thing that could have happened to Oden, just like I think that Texas losing in the second round was the best thing to happen to Kevin Durant. Why do I think that these are good things? Because it seems pretty apparent that both of these guys really, really, really want to stay in school but are being pressured to enter the draft. I've been lurking on various message boards and the overriding theme is: "These guys are morons if they don't leave for the NBA." Am I missing something here? When did it become a bad thing to want to stay in school?

I keep hearing the same arguments for why they should leave: they're guaranteed to become millionaires; they can always go back to school later; college is just there to help you find a good job; they've learned all they can playing college basketball. The last point is rendered moot because both Oden and Durant have said that they feel they aren't ready for the NBA and could use at least one more year in college. The other points, I find interesting. I find them so because I'm pretty sure that most of the people making those arguments never actually went to college. I'm not talking about taking classes online, or going to a commuter school or having to juggle classes, work and being a parent all at the same time. I'm talking about those of us who were blessed enough to attend a a traditional college or university right out of high school and earn a degree within four or five (or six or seven) years. I'm pretty sure that if you were to ask people who have been in that situation if they could go back and change it, the overwhelming response would be, "Absolutely not."

This is how I see it. I'm 28 years old and I earn a decent salary. I don't earn in the millions but I do ok for myself. Ten years ago I was in my freshman year in college. If someone were to go to my 18 year old self and say, "Hey, if you leave college right now, we'll give you a salary of [what I make right now]" would I do it? Yeah, most likely. Because to my 18 year old self it's a lot of money. But now, looking back, I realize that that would have been a terrible decision. If I hadn't stayed in school those last three schools I would have missed out on life learning opportunities. I would have missed making lifelong friendships. I wouldn't have the same opportunity to grow as a person. College isn't about getting a degree so that you can get a job that pays a lot of money. College isn't about sitting in a classroom and filling your head with information to regurgitate on an exam. Those are aspects of the college life. What college is actually about is providing you that perfect scenario to transition from a child to an adult. And once you give it up, you'll never get it back. To me...that's priceless.

Every time I hear this debate, it brings to mind the saying that "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan." People always bring up KG, Kobe, T-Mac and LeBron. But how many times do you hear about Dontonio Wingfield, Korleone Young, Leon Smith, Ousmane Cisse and Kendrick Perkins? Who? Exactly. Heck, for that matter, doesn't it seem likely that guys like Darius Miles and Kwame Brown could have benefited from at least a couple of years of college? Back in 1996, Ray Allen was trying to decide if he should leave Connecticut for the NBA draft. He reached out to former fellow Husky Donyell Marshall to ask for his advice. Marshall asked him one question: "Do you want to be rich or do you want to be happy?"

The one point that people were making that gave me pause was the thought that maybe Oden or Durant might sustain a career-ending injury. Then I thought about it and wondered, "When has that ever happened?" I could not think of one single instance where a top NBA prospect ever got hurt so badly in college that he had to end his career. Football, yes. Basketball, no. I don't think it's ever happened. Back when it was the norm for players to stay in school for three or four years, did any of them ever get hurt? Tim Duncan twice turned down a chance to be the number one pick in the NBA draft before graduating and going to San Antonio. I don't think he regrets his decision.

I'm not saying that Oden and Durant should stay in school. I'm saying that there are benefits to doing so and I think that they both realize this. They shouldn't be criticized for that. Neither one of them is OJ Mayo. They're not just using college as a marketing opportunity for their name. They actually value what college can give them. That's admirable.


TITLE TAKEN
from the greatest sports' documentary of all time

Black people screaming, "Racism!" White people screaming, "Reverse racism!" Chinese people screaming, "Sideways racism!"

SITUATION NUMBER ONE
A while back I tried (very unsuccessfully) to spread the gospel of Lyrics Born. One of the few people who actually gave him a shot was JoyPearl . She later admitted to me that she had listened to some of his stuff and liked it. I chalked that up as a victory in our ongoing war as to what constitutes good music. Then some time after that, I got home from work, jumped onto MSN messenger and she hit me with an IM. The conversation went something like this:

JOYPEARL: hey!!!
ME: Yo.
JOYPEARL: i just saw lyrics born on tv!
ME: Sweet.
JOYPEARL: hes not black!
ME (confused): Uh...I never said that he is.
JOYPEARL: i know
JOYPEARL: i just assumed that he was


SITUATION NUMBER TWO
A couple of weeks ago Igwe hosted an impromptu get-together at his crib. I planned on going but I fell asleep and didn't make it. I was later informed by Kuli and Jumole that I should have been there because there was a pretty heated debate about the Mavs. Apparently some cats were saying that my lil Averys are overrated. But what really piqued my interest was when Kuli told me that some girl there was saying that the media is hyping up Dirk Nowitzki when the real star on the team is Josh Howard.



As you have probably surmised from the title of this post, I'm going to talk about racism. Usually when we hear the word "racism" we're bombarded with the concept in its most common form: white people and their racism against...well, everyone else. But I'm not here to talk about that.

[Except to mention this: that type is not going anywhere. This past weekend my brother and I made our way to Norman, Oklahoma to visit relatives (at least, that's the reason that I went). On Saturday we rounded up the Junior Set to take them out to eat. First we picked up the younger two from their house. Then we went to get the eldest from OU (or as my Texas Ex brother referred to it, "the heart of darkness"). So when we get to her dorm hall, we're waiting in the lobby for an elevator to come down. Waiting along with us was this white female student who was walking with a very pronounced limp. She's actually the one who pushed the button for the elevator. When the door opens, we let her get on first and then follow her. As I'm turning around I see this girl diving off the elevator as fast as her limp will allow her. Thought that was kinda funny. When we finally got to my cousin's dorm room and told her the story, she told us about a scenario she had gone through two days prior. She had been driving down the road when two guys in the car next to her had starting screaming profanities at another car. When she looked over to see what all the commotion was about, one of the guys screamed at her, "We're not talking to you, you f--king nigger!!!" That's probably our fault. We, the Oh-So-Originals, did not do a good job of explaining the rules of the world to the Junior Set: when you're black, you don't have the right to look when strange men in cars start shouting profanities. But anyway, if anyone out there is pleased with the status quo of racism and was starting to worry that it was going away, rest assured. I'm here to confirm that it is not.]

What I'm actually here to talk about is racism in the inverse of how we're used to talking about it. One of the things that I find interesting about music (specifically hip hop) and sports (specifically basketball) is that they are among the very few fields in America where Black people can have a leg up on White people and rule as the majority. Ostensibly, anyway. In reality, a rapper is only as powerful as his record label allows him to be. And no basketball player in the NBA wields more power than Commissioner David Stern. However, for the purposes of this discussion the illusion that has been built up for the consumption of the general population (that rappers and b-ball players are all as rich and powerful as they think they are) is perfect.

[Now you might be reading this and thinking to yourself, "Wait, where is he going with this? Minorities can't be racist in this society!" Please stop right there. Yes, I've heard that argument. Yes, I understand that argument. And yes, I think there is some merit to that argument (but not nearly as much as I've heard some people try to ascribe to it). As far as this post is concerned, "racism" means thinking negatively of AND/OR assuming something about someone strictly due to their skin color. And people of all races do that every day.]

So I postulate this...what do you think would happen in this situation: A group of people is treated as less than/second class citizens for half a millennium. They've spent constant time and energy demanding their equality, which they gain fractionally. At some point, they discover their ability to dominate at certain aspects of life. Now, knowing their history and the struggle they've endured, you'd think that they would empathize with other groups of people who try to get a piece of the pie in which they dominate. Right?

Right?

Heh.

I find the two scenarios up top fascinating because it shows how alike people actually are, no matter how much some may want to protest. Now, one thing I need to very clearly explain is that I am in no way accusing the person in either scenario of being racist. I know JoyPearl isn't. And while I don't know if the young lady in the second scenario is, I don't know that she isn't either. I'm just using these examples as jumping off points for exploration.

When I was trying to get people to listen to Lyrics Born, not once did it even remotely cross my mind to mention his ethnicity (for the record, LB is half Japanese-American and half Italian-American), which is why JoyPearl's shock really surprised me. But the more I thought about it, the more I could understand it. She isn't really a connoisseur of rap. What she knows about it is what is pretty much presented to the world--what you hear on the radio or see on MTV and BET. From this perspective, the face of rap music is far and away that of Black males. The appearance of a White rapper is such an anomaly that VH1 was even able to get away with making a reality show about it. As you all know, I long ago eschewed that particular form for the independent hip hop scene. And I think this revelation really let me know how far apart these two worlds actually are. I don't want to go as far as to say that race doesn't matter in the underground but as I was thinking about this, I realized that it really almost never crosses my mind. I think the reason for this is that the independent scene is far more tolerant of diversity when compared of the public form, where image is quite often the most important element.

I find the second situation even more interesting. Now, Josh Howard is a very good player. He's even elevated his game this season to an All-Star level. But I don't think it's possible for anyone to pay any interest at all to the Mavericks and honestly come away with the conclusion that any player is better or more vital to the team's success than Dirk Werner Nowitzki. I don't care if you only watch a game or two every season or if you're one of those hapless saps such as myself who spends way too much time dissecting every article written by Marc Stein, John Hollinger and Kelly Dwyer. Either way there's no evidence to back it up. But apparently this girl was really trying to make that very argument. Kuli believes that it is because Dirk is White and Josh Howard is Black.

This type of thinking is nothing new. Twenty years ago, Dennis Rodman and Isiah Thomas received a lot of flak when they said that Larry Bird was "overrated" and "if Bird was Black he'd be just another guy." This year, a lot of people are apoplectic at the very real chance that Steve Nash may win a third straight MVP (although to be fair, in this case, there's more to it than just his race). Some people may say that it is conclusion-jumping to attribute these arguments about Dirk and Nash to race. However, there are some curiosities that can't be explained any other way. From everything I've heard and read from the "experts" (coaches and sportswriters), there are three players who have really set themselves apart as MVP candidates thus far this season: Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki. But when fans voted for who they wanted to play in the All-Star game, only Bryant was selected. I guess there weren't enough Neo-Nazis to vote for the seven-foot Aryan from Germany (which begs a question: can skinheads or Klansmen actually be fans of football or basketball without being labeled hypocrites? Things that make you go...hmmmm).

Ok, so maybe the All-Star voting isn't the best barometer of determining whether or not there is covert racism in basketball. After all, fans also voted for Shaquille O'Neal to be the starting center for the East despite the fact that he's having by far the worst season of his career and despite the fact that Dwight Howard is clearly more deserving. Shaq and Dwight are both Black. Fans probably voted for O'Neal because he's who they're most used to seeing. They're more familiar with him. But what is racism if not a perversion of familiarity taken to an extreme?

Racism, of course, is driven by ignorance. Assumptions about non-Black rappers or negative opinions of White basketball players are usually based on inaccurate information, the same way White supremacists get their beliefs of people of other ethnicities. That is counteracted by awareness, which is gained by knowledge. JoyPearl was surprised by the fact that Lyrics Born isn't Black because she wasn't aware that a LOT of independent rap artists aren't Black. And I don't think any real fan of the Dallas Mavericks cares one way or the other what color Dirk is; we just ask that he continues to play at a high level.


"If y'all are losing, who's winning? It sure ain't us."


TITLE TAKEN
from a hilarious Chris Rock bit

Will we ever see these kinds of things again?

- Check it...I was at the mall the other day and I watched a scenario unfold that I've seen two or three times in my life. I was sitting in the food court eating when all of a sudden this little girl appears. She's crying. Apparently she's been separated from her mom and doesn't know where she went. And just like I've seen happen in the past, some woman goes over to the girl, tries to console her, then picks her up so they can go find the child's mother.

See, I can't do that. God forbid some kid ever gets lost and I'm the only adult around because that kid won't get any help. Now don't get me wrong. I feel for kids in this situation. But I ain't touching 'em. Because I know that the second that I tried to help, I'd hear (to paraphrase Dave Chappelle): "He still has her! (POP!) Let's just sprinkle some crack on him and get out of here." No sir-ee. If some kid is ever lost and looks to me for help, then I'll draw him a map and point him in the direction of the office. "Good luck, kid!"


- The question in the title refers to everything that follows. But I'm going to go ahead and answer the question now.

"No."


1985
*Michael still looked human.
*Lionel was more famous than Nicole.
*Stevie and Bruce trading off...if you don't love that then I wonder about you.
*Ray is no longer with us.
*Quincy Jones is a powerful man. Rumor has it that he warned everyone to leave their egos at home. Considering the fact that Diana Ross behaved, he must have been quite convincing.
*God didn't actually turn stone to bread. Satan tried to tempt Jesus into turning stone to bread.
*This brings back memories for me. My first grade teacher made us all learn the song and then sing it in front of the rest of the school and our parents. Apparently, my dad was so moved that he went out and bought the "Making of..." tape. Despite the fact that we did not own a VCR at the time. I remember watching it and thinking that there was one guy who just really seemed out of place. I later learned that his name is Dan Akroyd.




1989
*Ah...Doug E. Fresh's crew sporting the black trench coats with white sneakers. Classic.
*Big Daddy Kane seems rather modest here.
*Never did understand how Tone Loc got invited to this party.
*I know Heavy D was pretty popular at the time, but I think he's really been a slept on MC.
*Speaking of Heavy D: Trouble T-Roy...They Reminisce Over You.
*The prism of time is an interesting thing. It's fun to watch Flava Flav before he became an object of desire for golddiggers everywhere.




1990
*The younger brother here is either extremely brave or extremely stupid. Or possibly both. Probably both.
*I don't understand why the gang members just couldn't wear red and blue. I'll accept green, because I know there is (was?) a Treetop Piru set. But yellow? Yellow? I've never seen any self-respecting gang claim yellow as their color. They could have at least used purple.
*Seventeen years later...Michel'le's speaking voice still makes me smile.
*Dr. Dre was...skinny.
*Someone explain to me why MC Hammer is the butt of jokes while Puff Diddy (or whatever he's calling himself this week) is respected. Diddy is really just Hammer 2.0.
*Although it is funny to see MC Hammer hanging out with Eazy E.
*Oh yeah...Eazy E is no longer with us.
*We still thought Shock G and Humpty Hump were two different people.




1994
*Whenever I think of great bass players, I never think of Raphael Saadiq. But he always drops dope bass lines.
*D'Angelo had yet to disappear from our collective conscience. Although, to be fair, he had yet to appear in our collective conscience.
*By the way, D'Angelo looks like an 8th grader who just happened to start growing facial hair early.
*How can this movie take place and have been filmed in Houston but H-Town (the group) wasn't given more prominence in the song?
*We were not yet aware of the extracurricular activities of R. Kelly and Tevin Campbell.
*But that boy T.E.V.I.N. sho can sang!
*Boyz II Men was still a quartet.
*Gerald is no longer with us.
*What DID happen to the DeBarge family?
*How is it possible that Babyface was not affiliated with this project?
*I realize that any movie requires a certain level of belief suspension. But did they really have no other choice but to cast Allen Payne and Bokeem Woodbine as brothers? Are there any two black males on the planet who look less alike?