Oscar's Grouch

The only event that takes place during this time of year is the Oscars.  I'm sure the blank calendar had a lot to do with Hollywood's scheduling tactics.  

The best part of the Oscars is it gives a television gluttoned society the opportunity to consume more television.  We have already seen these movies, and we have already decided which movies were the best, we just have to see what others think about them, and watch them get trophies for it.  And if that wasn't good enough, we get excited and feel the need to watch those movies all over again. 

Having been the exception to society, I failed to watch any of these over celebrated movies on the big-screen.  Seeing the long list of movies nominated as picture of the year make me realize that I didn't miss out on anything.  Apparently none of them were able to stand out.

Among the nine movies nominated for best picture were "The Life of Pi", whose story apparently goes in circles; "Argo", a movie about the filming of a movie; and "Les Misérables", a movie titled miserable.  

What really gets me is how much air time is dedicated to watching the audience show up.  People get to see those same movie stars on television once again, and ogle at the dress that some gay guy pulled out of his rear.  We get to watch Jennifer Aniston blend in with the red carpet. 

It's too bad that this isn't enough to quench women's thirst for window shopping. 

We get to listen to an analysis of Nicole Kidman's hairstyle.  We get to observe Adele flaunting her over exaggerated curves.  We get to watch Bradley Cooper's ostrich escort him.  We get to observe the identical tuxedos that all the men are wearing.

And because we are all incapable of formulating our own opinions, we have to tune in to listen to Joan Rivers offer her expert opinion.

The sad part is that most of the viewers are in denial.  Of course this plays such a big role in pop culture.  Without it, how else would we know that Halle Berry is still the hottest woman in Hollywood?  Without it, how would we know that Fergie was pregnant? 

To me, it is a clear indication to the extent of the withdrawals America is experiencing just a couple weeks after football is over.   

Credit Score Myth

It seems that every activity we do everyday is tied to some sort of reminder to our credit scores.  Whether it is some ad on the radio, an e-mail, billboard, or television, we are constantly being reminded that this number is the most important number for our financial well-being, and protecting it can mean the difference between prosperity and poverty.  

The purpose of the credit score is to allow creditors to take a glimpse at someone's financial history, more specifically, how successful one has been in paying their bills in a timely manner.  

This number can be the difference between a $100,000 loan and a $1,000 loan.  It can be the difference between a 2013 Audi A8 and a 1993 Geo Metro.  It can be the difference between a 3.5% interest rate and a 6.5% interest rate.  Because of these differences, I can understand why creditors place so much weight and focus on this number. 

However, this score might be the most overrated and overused number that we have become associated with.  

Why?

Because, for many, it is a gauge that indicates how much debt, or more debt, one can acquire.  Overrated because people actually go through great lengths to ensure a favorable score, and overused because people actually use it to take out unnecessary loans.

An acquaintance of mine, I'll call him Rick, actually considered himself a millionaire because he took advantage of his credit rating.  He took out loans to buy several expensive cars, boats, houses, and a plethora of other expensive toys.  The combined value of those assets were enough to place him in his desired financial status.  

Unfortunately, too many people abuse their credit score in the same way.  Instead of being responsible, they take advantage of their available credit to satisfy a craving.  

Rick eventually lost everything.  He failed to make the payments and eventually filed for bankruptcy.  I wish I could say that this was an isolated incident, but stories like this happen all too often.  

If people were willing to be responsible for their own financial well-being, banks wouldn't have over lent, people wouldn't have defaulted on loans, banks wouldn't have gone bankrupt, and the most recent economic turmoil may have been averted.  

And yet, these are the people that complained about the economy.  These are the people that blamed Washington D.C. for their foreclosures and repossessions.  

These are the people that enthusiastically grabbed their own ankles, begging for their credit scores to rape them. 

Razorback Ricochet

In case you missed it, one of the most bizarre hunting accidents took place in France recently.  It is a story that could replace Dick Cheney at the mantle of hunting misfortunes.  It was an unlikely set of events that would make even the Big Bang theory seem probable.

The story starts when a 68 year-old avid French hunter takes aim at a boar and hits the trigger button with his booger hook.  The story then takes a vicious turn when the bullet ricochets off the boar at a right angle, travels through the air for two kilometers (1.25 miles), goes through a windshield, strikes the driver, and kills him instantly.

For the typical French investigator, the logical course of action is to give up and close the case, chalking it up as a typical hunting accident. 

However, anyone familiar with ballistics and calibers would be more than willing to look into this one a bit deeper.  Just a little bit.

The first question that comes to mind is the caliber.  It ricocheted at a 90 degree angle, travelled two kilometers, had enough juice to plow through a windshield, and still had enough power to kill a person.  It would have had to be a large caliber on steroids in order to make such an incredible journey.  But a large, powerful caliber wouldn't ricochet off a boar, it would turn the pig into ground sausage.  Interestingly enough, this event took place right before Groundhog Day.  

The next question has to do with science.  How did such a powerful projectile overcome the laws of physics?  How does a bullet that loses half of its kinetic energy from the ricochet off a soft pig, and continues to lose kinetic energy through two kilometers of fields, muster the strength to not ricochet off a hard windshield?  

Mythbusters demonstrated a bullet's difficulty to penetrate paper following a ricochet.  The French investigators are telling us that the bullet gained momentum following the ricochet, and maintained that momentum following its collision with the windshield.  

This would actually be groundbreaking evidence for some JFK assassination theorists.  The Magic Bullet theory is one that is criticized in the same way.  In essence, it theorizes that a single bullet created all seven wounds found in John F. Kennedy, ultimately killing him, and found its way into Texas governor John Connally.  

But in the realistic scenario that the bullet isn't magical and that the laws of physics are consistent, the only other explanations would be foul play or gross negligence.  

I can understand negligence if this were his first time holding a rifle and didn't know to keep his finger off the trigger.  I can understand negligence if a shotgun were used while pheasant hunting. 

A 1.25 mile shot takes more than just a magic bullet.  It takes more than just a large caliber.  It takes cooperative elements.  It takes an experienced marksman, perhaps an avid hunter.  It appears that it may take a 68 year-old French hunter.  

Offense Wins Championships?

One of the most debated adages in football is that offense wins games, defense wins championships.  This mindset has certainly been under fire over the last decade as we have witnessed the evolution of the pass happy offense.  The writers at Freakonomics, was the latest to conclude that the defense is given a disproportionate amount of championship credit.  A quick look at the numbers and one could make such a conclusion, but an in depth analysis will paint a different picture.

Statistics are an interesting thing.  You can look at the season end numbers and determine which quarterbacks were most successful.  You can see which offenses were the most anemic, which defenses were the most porous, and which kicker was the most accurate.  Unfortunately, those numbers fail to capture the most important depiction, how those teams are performing going into the playoffs.

Here's an example.  The New York Giants defense entered the playoffs in 2012 ranked 27th out of the 32 teams.  If you look back at the way the team performed through the final six games, you would think they were the best defense that year.  They overcame injuries and other inconsistencies to become a dynamic defense.  Unfortunately, their 27th rank made them look like a prime candidate to run up the score on.  We saw differently in the playoffs.

Another example.  Buffalo Bills fans are familiar with Ryan Fitzpatrick's struggles in 2011.  After a phenomenal first half of the season, he completely tanked and and finished with mediocre statistics.  He literally went from tops in the league, to middle of the pack, which means his performance over the final eight games must have been worst in the NFL.  

The problem with looking at the season statistics is it doesn't depict an accurate placement of where a person or team currently stands.  Perhaps a five-game running average of statistics would provide more solid statistics for where a team is trending.

Perhaps the key to understanding the adage is realizing the grammatical significance the "s" makes on championships.  This would indicate multiple championships—dynasties.  

What defenses in the leagues history has had the opportunity to carry their respective teams to perennial greatness?  The Pittsburg Steelers had their Steel Curtain, the Vikings had their Purple People Eaters, and the Rams had their Fearsome Foursome.  The Patriots had a defense that was at the top in the league when they were winning their Super Bowls.

Freakonomics also points out that the Super Bowls have had a higher scoring output than the respective teams score during the regular season.  However, they also fail to mention that the two weeks to prepare for a game is a luxury that just isn't available during the regular season.  In fact, teams coming off a bye week generally do score more points in their next game, so their data is obviously incomprehensible and flawed.  

I will say though, if there is anything that we can learn from the Super Bowl tonight, it is that the special teams are too often overlooked, and that it is important to pay more than just half the power bill.