The head basketball coach at the University of Connecticut recently lost his cool when questioned by a reporter about his $1.6 million salary, his status as a state employee, and whether or not he thought his pay was a bit exorbitant considering the state of the economy. The coach responded with a bitter, angry tirade about his program's contributions to the university ($12 million per year). Coach Jim Calhoun is obviously well-compensated for his job, he is a beloved figure in the state of Connecticut, and his team is one of the best in the country year after year. Why is he so grouchy?
The question was probably irrelevant to the post-game news conference, and probably intended to grab attention as much as to gain any real insight. Calhoun's response was probably a little harsh and certainly unprofessional (the governor of Connecticut has expressed her embarrassment over Calhoun's actions).
But salaries in sports are a matter of concern to many people, and a proper examination of the situation is relevant in these uncertain economic times.
College coaches at major programs earn enormous salaries for doing what a great many people can only dream of doing, and would do for free if given the chance. Their jobs, however, are not easy or always fun. They put in long hours and live under a lot of stress. But so do politicians, teachers, nurses, and just about everybody else who tries to balance success at work and at home as well. One can argue that they are in a performance-based profession, where the most successful coaches earn the highest salaries. That's true, but our own head football coach at the University of Nebraska, Bo Pelini, earns over $1 million a year, and he was guaranteed that before he had coached a single game! And his seven figure salary actually ranks second to last in the Big 12 Conference, though our team certainly didn't. Former Iowa State head coach Gene Chizik was just awarded a $2 million per year contract at Auburn. His stellar record at Iowa State that earned him such a rich reward? 5 wins in the past two years. Hmm...doesn't really seem performance-based to me!
And of course, the athletes get paid more than the coaches! Baseball players sign contracts worth up to $27 million a year! And they still get paid even if they don't play! If you're over 7 feet tall, an NBA team will pay you over $10 million dollars a year to simply grab the ball out of the air after other players miss shots. Alas, our poor football players don't make nearly as much as their round-ball brethren. Few players make more than $2 million a year, and if they get hurt, they DON'T get paid.
Here's a stat for you. In 1978, the average teacher salary in the US was around $12,000. Today it is around $40,000, an increase of close to 3.5 times. The average MLB salary in 1978 was a little under a hundred thousand dollars. Today it is almost $3 million. That is an increase of....about thirty times!!! Why such a disparity?
Sports have become a big business. TV and the Internet have made owners rich, and the players and coaches simply get paid (pretty fairly) what they're worth. The problem with coach and player salaries is that they have been so artificially inflated. One superstar holds out until he gets an eye-poppingly ridiculous contract, paying him a large percentage more than what other star players make. What happens next? The next time the other big stars are up for contracts, they hold out until they get what they "deserve". And so on and so forth, until even the most mediocre of players is raking in millions of dollars a year.
The world's best teacher could hold out...and promptly be shown the door. He or she is easily replaced. The athlete could be replaced just as easily, but some sucker will pay him what he asks. Teachers could strike...but they won't because of their sense of duty and responsibility to society. The athlete does not have these feelings.
I am not a sports hater! I love sports! I watch them religiously. And I am the problem. Like so many others, I have created the monster by watching and reading about and even blogging about sports. I have paid $60 to see a football game, but I would probably not attend an educational lecture unless it was free! Are inflated salaries in sports a problem? Maybe. Are they fair? In some ways yes, but mostly...no, no they're not. Do we have anyone to blame but ourselves? Definitely not.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Dark Knight Oscar Snub
I love movies, and I'm a budding amateur critic. There's always room for differences in taste amongst people, so if you like a movie that I don't and vice versa, I will totally understand. There is no excuse, however, but plain old-fashioned stodginess for why Christopher Nolan's Batman epic, "The Dark Knight" did not receive a Best Picture nomination for the Academy Awards.
To me, there's two main parts in assessing a movie's quality. First, there's the "tangibles" - the technical categories like Art Direction, Cinematography, Make-up, Costumes, Editing...you get my meaning. Though these areas may be hard to judge for those of us that aren't in the biz, people that are in-the-know can tell the shoddy from the shining. I know very little about these categories, and I trust the people who are responsible for analyzing these films to get it right come awards time.
The second part is the "intangibles" - aspects of a film that are more open to opinion or interpretation. These subjective areas include the writing, the direction, and the acting, which really combine to give us what the movie really strives to be.
Unquestionably, the Dark Knight was a great technical success. It has garnered 7 nominations in technical categories. Its huge budget no doubt gave this movie a big advantage in these areas. It would be pretty hard to capture Hong Kong at night as brilliantly as cinematographer Wally Pfister did without being able to spend millions on chartering planes and helicopters.
So there's part one - the tangibles. What does the Dark Knight have for intangibles, you ask?
1) A Best Supporting actor nomination for Heath Ledger in a brilliant and iconic performance that many rate as one of the best they've ever witnessed. (And probably a win at the Oscars in a couple of weeks.) And don't discount the other performances in the movie either. An exceptional cast gives a terrific, if understated (except Batman's big-boy voice) ensemble performance.
2) A Director recognized by the DIRECTOR'S GUILD of AMERICA (not by Oscar). Think those guys know anything about directing?
3) A screenplay recognized by the WRITER'S GUILD of AMERICA (not by Oscar). Think those guys know anything about writing?
And finally, the biggest reason why THE DARK KNIGHT deserves some love for Best Picture. It is by no means an easy task to do a good comedy, a good actioner, or a good drama. Which is why it's so incredible that TDK pulls of its blend of drama, action, suspense, and even humor so brilliantly.
Throw all of the technical and non-technical aspects aside, and the creators of this movie were still able to do something incredible with this film. It is almost universally acclaimed by critics, fans, and general audiences. Last year's winner, No Country For Old Men, was an amazing movie, but with a very narrow appeal. The Dark Knight is an amazing movie with almost UNIVERSAL appeal. In addition to being technically solid, dramatically moving, and intellectually engaging, it is massively entertaining!
TITANIC won Best Picture about 10 years ago. It's not the best drama I've ever seen, or the best love story, or the best historical epic. But few other movies could pull off a dramatic love story set in the early 20th century amidst a backdrop of one of the most epic disasters ever seen on film. A production that huge and polished deserved its critical acclaim, awards, and a billion dollars.
And that, my friends, is why the absence of the Dark Knight in the Best Picture category will make the Oscars so dull and pointless this year. It's huge, it's great, it's got immense support and it is completely unique, unmatched and ground-breaking. None of the other movies that will be recognized will have nearly as much going for them.
So take my advice - don't tune into ABC on Sunday the 22nd. Get some popcorn, a soda, and a comfy spot on the couch. And spend your evening watching "THE DARK KNIGHT."
To me, there's two main parts in assessing a movie's quality. First, there's the "tangibles" - the technical categories like Art Direction, Cinematography, Make-up, Costumes, Editing...you get my meaning. Though these areas may be hard to judge for those of us that aren't in the biz, people that are in-the-know can tell the shoddy from the shining. I know very little about these categories, and I trust the people who are responsible for analyzing these films to get it right come awards time.
The second part is the "intangibles" - aspects of a film that are more open to opinion or interpretation. These subjective areas include the writing, the direction, and the acting, which really combine to give us what the movie really strives to be.
Unquestionably, the Dark Knight was a great technical success. It has garnered 7 nominations in technical categories. Its huge budget no doubt gave this movie a big advantage in these areas. It would be pretty hard to capture Hong Kong at night as brilliantly as cinematographer Wally Pfister did without being able to spend millions on chartering planes and helicopters.
So there's part one - the tangibles. What does the Dark Knight have for intangibles, you ask?
1) A Best Supporting actor nomination for Heath Ledger in a brilliant and iconic performance that many rate as one of the best they've ever witnessed. (And probably a win at the Oscars in a couple of weeks.) And don't discount the other performances in the movie either. An exceptional cast gives a terrific, if understated (except Batman's big-boy voice) ensemble performance.
2) A Director recognized by the DIRECTOR'S GUILD of AMERICA (not by Oscar). Think those guys know anything about directing?
3) A screenplay recognized by the WRITER'S GUILD of AMERICA (not by Oscar). Think those guys know anything about writing?
And finally, the biggest reason why THE DARK KNIGHT deserves some love for Best Picture. It is by no means an easy task to do a good comedy, a good actioner, or a good drama. Which is why it's so incredible that TDK pulls of its blend of drama, action, suspense, and even humor so brilliantly.
Throw all of the technical and non-technical aspects aside, and the creators of this movie were still able to do something incredible with this film. It is almost universally acclaimed by critics, fans, and general audiences. Last year's winner, No Country For Old Men, was an amazing movie, but with a very narrow appeal. The Dark Knight is an amazing movie with almost UNIVERSAL appeal. In addition to being technically solid, dramatically moving, and intellectually engaging, it is massively entertaining!
TITANIC won Best Picture about 10 years ago. It's not the best drama I've ever seen, or the best love story, or the best historical epic. But few other movies could pull off a dramatic love story set in the early 20th century amidst a backdrop of one of the most epic disasters ever seen on film. A production that huge and polished deserved its critical acclaim, awards, and a billion dollars.
And that, my friends, is why the absence of the Dark Knight in the Best Picture category will make the Oscars so dull and pointless this year. It's huge, it's great, it's got immense support and it is completely unique, unmatched and ground-breaking. None of the other movies that will be recognized will have nearly as much going for them.
So take my advice - don't tune into ABC on Sunday the 22nd. Get some popcorn, a soda, and a comfy spot on the couch. And spend your evening watching "THE DARK KNIGHT."
Economic Stimulus
I'm not an economist.
I don't understand or "know" at least 75% of the terms I hear bandied about on the news shows.
I do hear the GOP complaining that the pending stimulus bill is simply going to put "the next generation" in debt. Over a TRILLION dollars in debt, they say.
Debt - you mean, like the war in Iraq debt? (Whether you agree with it or disagree, you can't deny it's cost a lot of money!) 1.5 TRILLION dollars in tax cuts under President Bush (whether you think tax cuts are good or not, they clearly could not prevent the situation we are in now!)
Isn't all spending by the government really just debt for the American people? Everyone complains when Uncle Sam takes and spends their money, but where would this country really be without 6.7% of my paycheck? I might have a nicer TV and more DVD's, but I probably wouldn't have a nice Interstate to drive on to go visit my sister in Ohio.
I have no idea if this stimulus bill will work, but WAKE UP GOP!!! Tax cuts are not the answer for everything! Even if you gave me back more money from my paycheck or cut me another stimulus check, it wouldn't help the economy. Why? I've already spent it! (Like most people I know.)
Americans need jobs. Americans need hope. Americans need for their leaders to try something NEW and BOLD. We don't want a guarantee or a few hundred dollars. We want someone to follow - out of this mess.
I don't understand or "know" at least 75% of the terms I hear bandied about on the news shows.
I do hear the GOP complaining that the pending stimulus bill is simply going to put "the next generation" in debt. Over a TRILLION dollars in debt, they say.
Debt - you mean, like the war in Iraq debt? (Whether you agree with it or disagree, you can't deny it's cost a lot of money!) 1.5 TRILLION dollars in tax cuts under President Bush (whether you think tax cuts are good or not, they clearly could not prevent the situation we are in now!)
Isn't all spending by the government really just debt for the American people? Everyone complains when Uncle Sam takes and spends their money, but where would this country really be without 6.7% of my paycheck? I might have a nicer TV and more DVD's, but I probably wouldn't have a nice Interstate to drive on to go visit my sister in Ohio.
I have no idea if this stimulus bill will work, but WAKE UP GOP!!! Tax cuts are not the answer for everything! Even if you gave me back more money from my paycheck or cut me another stimulus check, it wouldn't help the economy. Why? I've already spent it! (Like most people I know.)
Americans need jobs. Americans need hope. Americans need for their leaders to try something NEW and BOLD. We don't want a guarantee or a few hundred dollars. We want someone to follow - out of this mess.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Music
I caught some of the Grammys last night with my wife. As I reflected on the nominees in each category, I was struck by the need to rename the Grammys. I think it should be called, "The Teen Choice Awards."
Oh - there's already a Teen Choice Awards? Well, then in this economy, why does anyone need to waste time and money on the Grammys? I mean, seriously, it seems a little superfluous to have multiple awards ceremonies to celebrate the music of Pink, Lil' Wayne, and T-Pain (or T-Bone or T-Slice or whatever). Most of the nominees in the "major" categories are simply teeny-bopper favorites. I use the word "major" with great sarcasm, as I'm wondering when Pop Music became the standard by which all other music is judged. ( I'm also wondering when Coldplay became a "Rock" band.)
Now don't label me as one of those people who simply detests an artist because they are popular. As the kids say, I'm not a "hater." I enjoy several of the musicians who presented, performed, or made appearances at the ceremony, such as the very talented Leona Lewis, the destined-for-legend-status Justin Timberlake, Jason Mraz, and even the occasional Kanye. But PINK for Best Female Vocal Performance?!?! Get outta here!
I think it's somewhat comical that the Grammys and the Oscars, both representing the pinnacle of achievement in their respective area of the arts, are complete opposites. The Oscars have a habit of rewarding great films that have a very limited appeal, often snubbing some actors or films just BECAUSE they enjoy modest popularity, whereas the Grammys reward whatever artists seem to have the most mass appeal at the time, whether they have any talent or not.
It breaks my heart to see the JONAS BROTHERS performing with Stevie Freakin' Wonder. And Miley Cyrus (bless her heart) stinking up the joint while so many legitimate musicians toil in obscurity. What's next, Zach Efron performing Sinatra at next year's show? Here's one guy who's hoping that someday the music world will recognize more deserving entertainers with its highest honor, and the flavors of the week will just have to make due somehow with all of their cash.
Oh - there's already a Teen Choice Awards? Well, then in this economy, why does anyone need to waste time and money on the Grammys? I mean, seriously, it seems a little superfluous to have multiple awards ceremonies to celebrate the music of Pink, Lil' Wayne, and T-Pain (or T-Bone or T-Slice or whatever). Most of the nominees in the "major" categories are simply teeny-bopper favorites. I use the word "major" with great sarcasm, as I'm wondering when Pop Music became the standard by which all other music is judged. ( I'm also wondering when Coldplay became a "Rock" band.)
Now don't label me as one of those people who simply detests an artist because they are popular. As the kids say, I'm not a "hater." I enjoy several of the musicians who presented, performed, or made appearances at the ceremony, such as the very talented Leona Lewis, the destined-for-legend-status Justin Timberlake, Jason Mraz, and even the occasional Kanye. But PINK for Best Female Vocal Performance?!?! Get outta here!
I think it's somewhat comical that the Grammys and the Oscars, both representing the pinnacle of achievement in their respective area of the arts, are complete opposites. The Oscars have a habit of rewarding great films that have a very limited appeal, often snubbing some actors or films just BECAUSE they enjoy modest popularity, whereas the Grammys reward whatever artists seem to have the most mass appeal at the time, whether they have any talent or not.
It breaks my heart to see the JONAS BROTHERS performing with Stevie Freakin' Wonder. And Miley Cyrus (bless her heart) stinking up the joint while so many legitimate musicians toil in obscurity. What's next, Zach Efron performing Sinatra at next year's show? Here's one guy who's hoping that someday the music world will recognize more deserving entertainers with its highest honor, and the flavors of the week will just have to make due somehow with all of their cash.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Welcome
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to "Where I'm Always Right." I'll be your host, the guy who, at least on this blog, is never wrong! In the coming weeks and months you can expect to see my opinions on just about everything, from sports to politics to movies and more.
Though I've been looking for a place to vent my frustrations and offer up my "modest" critiques for years, my rants have fallen on deaf/uninterested ears. I finally caved in and started a blog, not for myself, but for the real winners out there, those of you who now have access to my deepest AND most superficial practical and philosophical musings.
Enter now at your own risk....
J/K. The guy talking above is only my online alter-ego. Ah, the Internet - a magical place where people can be as rude as they want because they're almost totally anonymous. I promise, on behalf of the real me, to forcefully and clearly express my opinions in the most gentle and circumventious of ways. Or, in the words of SNL's faux-Obama...
"I'll keep it cool."
Though I've been looking for a place to vent my frustrations and offer up my "modest" critiques for years, my rants have fallen on deaf/uninterested ears. I finally caved in and started a blog, not for myself, but for the real winners out there, those of you who now have access to my deepest AND most superficial practical and philosophical musings.
Enter now at your own risk....
J/K. The guy talking above is only my online alter-ego. Ah, the Internet - a magical place where people can be as rude as they want because they're almost totally anonymous. I promise, on behalf of the real me, to forcefully and clearly express my opinions in the most gentle and circumventious of ways. Or, in the words of SNL's faux-Obama...
"I'll keep it cool."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
