Thursday, December 23, 2010

Top 30 Tunes of 2010: 10-1

Drumroll, please...

10. Jakob Dylan -"Nothing But the Whole Wide World"


9. The National - "England"


8. Broken Bells - "The Ghost Inside"


7. Kanye West - "Runaway"


6. Kings of Leon - "Pyro"


5. Jimmy Eat World - "Invented"


4. The Morning Benders - "Excuses"


3. Arcade Fire - "We Used to Wait"


2. Brandon Flowers - "Only the Young"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBENjCPS8LI (also probably my favorite video of the year)

1. The National - "Bloodbuzz Ohio"



Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Top 30 Tunes of 2010: 20-11



Top 30 Tunes of 2010:

20. Cults - "Go Outside"


19. Keane - "Clear Skies"


18. Fran Healy - "Fly in the Ointment"


17. Kings of Leon - "Radioactive"


16. LCD Soundsystem - "I Can Change"


15. Josh Ritter - "Lark"


14. Brandon Flowers - "Crossfire"


13. Band of Horses - "On My Way Back Home"


12. Sun Airway - "Put the Days Away"


11. Arcade Fire - "Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains)"








Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Top 30 Tunes of 2010: 30-21

Okay, a couple things.

First, I'm not a music expert, just a big fan. So I'm not about to claim that the following 30 songs are unquestionably the greatest musical, lyrical compilations of the past 12 months.

That said, they're 30 awesome songs that I thoroughly enjoyed this year, and I think you will too.

Secondly, it was taking way to much time to embed the videos for each of these, so I've included the links to YouTube.

Finally, please send me your comments or suggestions. I would love to hear what artists/songs made your 2010 a bit more musical.

Part 2 (20-11) will be on its way tomorrow. Enjoy...


Top 30 Tunes of 2010

30. Dead American Writers - "Tired Pony"

26. Bob Schneider - "40 Dogs (Romeo and Juliet)"


25. The Black Keys - "Tighten Up"


24. Codeine Velvet Club - "Hollywood"


23. Greg Laswell - "Lie to Me"


22. Beach House - "Norway"


21. Chiddy Bang - "All Things Go"



Friday, July 9, 2010

The Lebron Saga: Why It's All Michael Jordan's Fault

I am not an NBA fan. This morning, the reasons for that fact have never rung truer.

The NBA is a sport to celebrate the individual star.

The NBA is a sport full of selfish, self-promoting egotists.

The NBA is no longer about building a team, but rather collecting the most superstars.

The NBA is the only sport that could produce the kind of marketing show that Lebron James put on in Connecticut last night.

And while everyone today searches for a villain - Lebron, Dan Gilbert, ESPN, the collective media, the American sports fan, etc. - I can find one person to point most of the blame at:

Michael Jordan.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think MJ intentionally created the circus we know today as the NBA. I think he was the greatest player in NBA history who saved the league and made basketball a worldwide phenomenon for the first time.

But just as MJ saved the game, he simultaneously ruined it. Hear me out.

Jordan was known for his incredible individual skill. Sure, there had been great players (Magic, Bird, Dr. J., Kareem, and so on) before, but none had been so impressive to watch by himself in NBA history.

The dunks, the jumpers, the cross-over dribbles, the fist-pumps, the tongue... it was unlike anything we'd ever seen before. And with a growing sports media - more cameras, more TV stations, more magazines - we ate it up.

And seemingly overnight, the game of basketball was changed forever. Every NBA franchise began searching high-and-low for "The Next Jordan." Teams were built around marketable superstars, rather than championship-minded squads.

Penny. Shaq. McGrady. Kobe. Melo. Lebron.

While my dad's generation grew up on pick-up games, getting a group of guys together to play at the gym, my generation grew up with one-on-one games in the driveway, dunk contests and an ever-present dream to "Be Like Mike."

Even our video games changed. For example, the most popular basketball game for Super Nintendo at the time was "NBA Jams," where you played 2-on-2 basketball, complete with high-flying dunks and the ability to "catch fire" if you made enough shots in a row.

And as big as the changes were within the sport, they were even bigger away from it. Jordan became larger than life phenomenon off of the court. He was a marketing dream - and the world bowed before him to buy his shoes, his sports drink, his jerseys.

Nike became the dominant sports apparel company in the world. "Just Do It" and swooshes were on every kid's backpacks and t-shirts in America. The Air Jordan saga proved that one, ultra-talented player could be bigger than his team, bigger than the league, bigger than the game itself.

And thus was born the sports world we live in today. And, truthfully, it's not just found in the NBA.

We live in a world where Tiger Woods can be the most powerful advertising tool on the planet. A world where a football player's Twitter account can have nearly a million followers. A world where one baseball player can earn over $45,000 per at-bat. A world where the big stars get paid more to tell people what car to drive than they do to actually play their sport.

Clearly it isn't just the NBA that has been infected by this media-crazed, cash-infused philosophy, but I believe the NBA has certainly become the worst.

Can you imagine Albert Pujols holding a similar press conference to announce his new deal with the Cardinals? Or Peyton Manning being covered for an entire four-hour period on ESPN? In the off-season?

I can't. At least not yet.

But in the NBA, the individual can be bigger than the team, bigger than the league, bigger than the game.

It all started with MJ. Where will it end?

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Just Happy to Be There: Why the Saints will lose Super Bowl XLIV

I really want to root for the Saints this Sunday.

How could I not? They've got a blue-collar, likable quarterback in Drew Brees.

They have a (truly) rags-to-riches story - the city of New Orleans needs a Super Bowl title worse than probably any other NFL hub.

They are the most entertaining team to watch since Kurt Warner's "Greatest Show on Turf" St. Louis Rams.

I really do want the Saints to win.

But they won't.

And the person I have to blame for bringing me to this sad but true realization is my friend Mike Donovan.

Just days following the Saints' victory over the Vikings in the NFC championship, Mike pointed out that the Saints seemed to have gone into party mode.

For example, the day after their historic win, interviews with players revealed a team that had celebrated the night before like they had just won the Super Bowl, not simply made it there.

And who could blame them, right? New Orleans had never been to the big game before. And now here they were, on the shoulders of a talented and easy-to-root-for team, headed to Miami to play for sports' biggest crown.

It was a celebration long overdue, and the Saints (understandably) were not going to miss their opportunity.

But the Indianapolis Colts' reaction to their second AFC title in four years could not have been any different. They seemed business-like, calm and immediately focused on the next task at hand.

Do you think Peyton Manning went out and partied all night in Indianapolis after the team got past the New York Jets?

No, though Manning probably was up all night - watching film.

And it's likely that most of the Colts players were already turning their focus to the Saints, instead of relishing the accomplishment of simply getting there.

The Colts mantra has seems to be: been there, done that.

Meanwhile, the Saints appear to be the "happy to be there" team. They've been craving a Super Bowl so long, that just getting there might seem almost as significant as actually winning the game.

And, as he usually does, my friend Mike found copious amounts of statistics to back up his point.

He researched all of the Happy To Be There (HTBT) teams to play in the Super Bowl in the last 30 years. "HTBT" is loosely defined as a team that had either never been to a Super Bowl or had made it following an extended drought.

Below are the statistics Mike found from such games. Teams in bold are the "Happy To Be There" teams. Following the teams/scores is the result of the game for HTBT team, as well as whether the HTBT team covered the final Las Vegas point spread.

Take a look:

Happy to be there Super Bowls since 1980 (HTBT in Bold):

2009- Steelers (-7) 27, Cardinals 23 Loss, Cover
2006- Steelers (-4) 21, Seahawks 10 Loss, No cover
2004- Patriots (-7) 32, Panthers 29 Loss, Cover
2003- Buccaneers (+4) 48, Raiders 21 Both teams happy to be there
2002- Patriots (+14) 20, Rams 17 Win, Cover
2000- Rams (-7) 23, Titans 16 Both teams happy to be there
1999- Broncos (-4.5) 34, Falcons 19 Loss, No cover
1997- Packers (-14.5) 35, Patriots 21 Loss, Cover
1996- Cowboys (-13.5) 27, Steelers 17 Loss, Cover
1995- 49ers (-18.5) 49, Chargers 26 Loss, no cover
1989- 49ers (-7) 20, Bengals 16 Loss, Cover
1987- Giants (-9.5) 39, Broncos 20 Loss, No cover
1986- Bears (-10) 46, Patriots 10 Loss, no cover
1982- 49ers (-1) 26, Bengals 21 Both teams happy to be there
1981- Raiders (+3) 27, Eagles 10 Loss, No cover
1980- Steelers (-11.5) 31, Rams 19 Loss, No cover

Totals:
  • HTBT Teams are 4-15 overall and 1-12 against non-HTBT teams.
  • All 13 games against non-HTBT teams came against opponents who had won a Super Bowl in the previous five years.
  • HTBT Teams are 6-7 Against the Spread (ATS), however, 6-3 ATS in the last nine games.

So, history tells us that HTBT teams struggle mightily against non-HTBT teams in the Super Bowl, especially when the non-HTBT team has recently won a title themselves (like this year's Colts).

However, the trend is that HTBT teams do keep the games close, covering the spread in six of the last nine Super Bowls.

So, what does all of this mean? I'll tell you:

Colts 34, Saints 31

It will be close. It will be high-scoring. It will be a great game.

But in the end, the Colts will be more prepared, more focused and (as strange as it sounds) more motivated.

Because, if answering honestly, I'm not sure any of the Saints players would tell you that losing Super Bowl XLIV would make the 2009-10 season a disappointment.

But for a guy like Peyton Manning, anything less than another Super Bowl title equals complete failure.

The Saints are just happy to be there. Which is exactly why they won't be the happy ones Sunday night in Miami.


*Note: All stats provided by Mike Donovan, sports researcher extraordinaire, February, 2010


Monday, January 18, 2010

Dillon Brothers Debate: NFL Conference Championships, etc.

Jeff says:
J
E

T
S
JETS

JETS

JETS

Jameson says:
lol

Jeff says:
i'm on the bandwagon man
i'm on the bandwagon like Poland rooting for the U.S. in WWII

Jameson says:
like d-bags for Philip Rivers
bro they're going to get pummeled next week


Jeff says:
nah dude i've got them going to to Super Bowl!
Jets-Saints baby

for three reasons:

1. Mark Sanchez

2. it makes the least amount of sense, and that's like NFL policy now

3. it's the least appealing match-up, which Super Bowls always are

Jets-Saints
write it down

Jameson says:
no way here's why
1. If Nate Kaeding doesn't miss 3 field goals, the Jets lose that game

2. If it's 13-0 at half instead of 7-0, psychologically there is no way the Jets come back
and they would have had to ask Marky Mark to throw more and there would have been more picks down just 7-0, they were able to stay with the gameplan
3. Peyton Manning will not be held to 7 points in a half

4. The Jets will have to score 20 plus to win

5. Norv Turner will not be involved


Jeff says:
really?
did you see the Colts offense on Saturday??


Jameson says:
yeah

Jeff says:
they were horrible
absolutely shut down by Baltimore
and the Jets D is statistically better in almost every category than the Ravens'


Jameson says:
yeah but the Chargers ran on first down way to much and ended up in 3rd and long situations the whole game which is exactly what the Jets wanted
the Colts will attack them in first down
and did you see how wide open Gates was all game?

Dallas Clark is going to have a field day


Jeff says:
is that why they held the starters to just 15 points when they beat them in Dec?
even before they pulled their starters the jets were containing the Colts
and Clark your boy had 57 yards, no TD's

plus since the Denver game the Colts have not been on at all

the Jets just dominated the hottest team in football in San Diego

they can't be stopped!


Jameson says:
ok let's look at that first game
the Colts were up 10-3 before Brad Smith an back a kickoff return

Then they were up 15-10 when they pulled the starters

the Jets proceeded to get a defensive TD because Painter sucked
Then Marky Mark only got 10 points off the Colts 2nd string defense

So...you take out the defensive TD and the kickoff return and the Jets only scored 13 points
not enough to win on Sunday


Jeff says:
lol but that's like saying "take away its engine and its wheels and a mustang is really just a piece of scrap metal"
the Jets ARE their defense/special teams

that's what they win on

13 offensive points Sunday wins


Jameson says:
no, they didn't need to score a defensive TD or special teams TD Sunday because Nate Kaeding sucked

Jeff says:
well i would argue their second TD Sunday was a defensive TD wouldn't' you?

Jameson says:
true

Jeff says:
i understand that every sane, rational person will pick the Colts
but that's exactly why i'm picking the jets


Jameson says:
you're insane and irrational?

Jeff says:
yes, but also
because it's the NFL, and that's what happens in the NFL
plus... I LOVE THE JETS!

Rex Ryan was right - they should be favored in every game they play

Jameson says:
no way bro

Jeff says:
lol idk man answer me this...
do you think Kevin will be a good Commish of the baseball league?

wait, no
i mean
did you think the Ravens had a shot to win Saturday?


Jameson says:
I did, but upon further review, Joe Flacco had been so bad that I totally overestimated their chances against the best team in the NFL
wait a minute
sounds like someone else

Jeff says:
my fantasy team?

Jameson says:
no the Jets. and your fantasy team.

Jeff says:
yeah but Flacco completed four passes last week against the Pats yet you overlooked that because
A. they had Ray Rice and
B. their defense was dominant
right?

Jameson says:
yeah, I think Rex and Brian have a done a fantastic job calling plays for Sanchez
but look at his yardage the last two weeks it's terrible

Jeff says:
yeah but it's still like 400% better than Flacco's

Jameson says:
and you take away that one long run from Greene Sunday and they score 10 pts mostly due to field position their D gave them

Jeff says:
right, but that's my point
you gave Baltimore a chance because they're Baltimore
and they win games ugly even if their QB is average
but you won't give the same credit to the Jets


Jameson says:
and I was wrong, so I wont make that mistake again
I think the Colts will win the Super Bowl

and I think when we look back we'll all wonder why we didn't recognize how great they were because they rested their starters for those two weeks

like when Denver lost two straight in 1998 going into the playoffs
everyone forgot we were 14-0!!!!!!

Jeff says:
yeah

Jameson says:
then we cruised through the playoffs (including the Jets) and killed the Falcons in the playoffs
and looking back they were probably one of the best teams of the decade


Jeff says:
so... Colts-Falcons SB?

Jameson says:
I think so

Jeff says:
Jamaal Anderson back in at RB? Dirty Birds?

Jameson says:
I really like Matt Ryan
Matt Ryan actually threw for more yards yesterday than Sanchez


Jeff says:
lol
idk why you're hating on Mark

and besides, this Colts team is not the 1998 Broncos

their QB is not as good

their O-line isn't as good
they don't have a RB even close to T.D.

they aren't as healthy (their best defensive player, Bob Sanders, is out)

and their head coach literally gets his play calls from Tecmo Bowl

so i don't buy the Denver comparison - maybe with the saints, but not the colts


Jameson says:
fair enough

Jeff says:
either way you've got to pick away from whatever seems most likely in the NFL these days
i literally thought about it, decided Colts-Vikings seemed like clearly the best choices to win this week

so that settled it, i'm picking Jets-Saints

plus, I might have mentioned, I love the Jets


Jameson says:
what do you think about the Saints-Vikings game? will it be close?

Jeff says:
yeah that's tough... i'm not sure cause i do think the Vikes defense will challenge Brees and Co. but the Vikes are terrible on the road

Jameson says:
it kinda reminds me of the Falcons/Vikings game from 1999
when Andersen missed the kick
only the Vikings are the Falcons this time

the favorite had a high flying pass offense
the Falcons had an old QB who could make plays but had a great run game
but I think I'll go with the Saints


Jeff says:
wait, so the Vikings are like the old Falcons
and the Saints like the old Vikings

which you didn't like the old Vikings

but you do like the new Vikings

so you're going with the old Vikings over the new Vikings?

so... the Saints?


Jameson says:
yeah old Vikings
the old Vikings should have won that game with that field goal

so the Saints will win on a last second field goal

or just blow the Vikings out

either way, I'm going with my boy Brees


Jeff says:
alright

Jameson says:
but yeah I think Kevin will be fine

Jeff says:
haha