Hear the Hurd

The Worst No Hitter I Ever Saw

Reflections of a night on the morning after. The rain was neither a deluge nor a drizzle. Yet it was steady and constant nearly the entire evening and the chill in the air was evident with every breath seen by the players. To be sure, both teams had to deal with the environmental conditions and most certainly both starting pitchers were able to withstand what might have buckled another. As it did for nearly every position player at the plate. On one side, you had young Ian Anderson (our very own Jethro Tull who somehow proved that he was Thick As a Brick.) He's had a nearly flawless postseason record in his brief career and this team needed it after losing the tested ace in Charlie Morton to a broken fibula in game one (and pitching on it even after the fracture) and seeing the 1A ace in Max Fried see another game get away from him early (even though he battled it out.) On the other side was baby rocking Luis Garcia who was equally as tender footed as a major league pitcher and had seen one good game and one poor for the previous round of the playoffs. Who would best the other on this nasty, nasty night?

I don't know about you, but I get very superstitious about the first pitch of any game in MLB. Anderson's first pitch was called a ball down and away and for one of the few times this evening, the umpire was correct. And so it would go for a good portion of the five innings that followed. But we'll get to that below. For first, we must look at the opposing pitcher. For 3 and 2/3 innings, Garcia threw 72 pitches, only 41 called strikes. 16 of those were swinging strikes and many of those were outside of the actual strike zone. No thanks to umpire Tom Hallion for his inconsistent strike zone that might have caused Braves hitters to swing at things they might not otherwise, but this is and has been an aggressive team (sometimes too aggressive) and so we were in need of a great performance by our starter. One run would score in the 3rd inning which would chase Garcia, but not before 2 pitches and 2 outs in the 4th.

So Ian Anderson would trot out to the mound for five innings and throw no hit ball...somehow. 76 pitches offered. Only 39 of those were called strikes. In no way could one call this a dominating performance. It was smoke and mirrors and rain (perhaps) to create what Houston Manager Dusty Baker called "effectively wild." Your major sports writers were astounded (and not too many fans) when Anderson was pulled after the fifth, but the tale of the tape says why. The number of full counts, the number of first (and second) pitch balls to batters. The traffic on the base paths even without the benefit of a hit. There would be key pitches, to be sure. These would extend the no hitter. But it was not pretty. As a fan and viewer, every pitch seemed as if that would be the one to break out and yet...it did not happen. Our young Jethro Tull would sneak through (and get the all important win) in a game that was a must win.

No small part of that was the bullpen performance that followed. Minter, Jackson, Matzek and Smith would follow with 2 hit ball for the final 4 innings and the Braves would tack on another score in the 8th with a Travis D'Arnaud home run. In the end, the shutout was preserved and the win gained to bring the Braves 2 games up to 1 for Houston. So it really wasn't a no hitter. Nor should it have been. Yet what it was? A gutsy and nail-biting performance most needed at this moment in the Series. On a night that was ugly in weather, when Braves hitters would swing wildly and at unnecessary moments, when the umpiring crew (most especially behind the plate) would give no quarter to our staff and when so many in the national media wanted to make a story out of nothing (once again) as the games moved to Atlanta, we got the performance required no matter how unlikely it was. It was not a no hitter but it was for 5 innings and it was the worst (best?) no hitter I ever saw. Now bring on game 4!

That is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 9

I'm a bit late with my latest oh so scientific and accurate top 10 rankings due to the elation of the Braves going to the World Series. Saturday was a special day and had nothing whatsoever to do with college football. To quote the great Skip Carey, "Braves win! Braves win! Braves win!" Further to that, this coming Saturday looks to also be a special day, especially amongst Atlanta sports fans. If I'm getting this correctly, all four professional sports teams will be playing as well as Georgia and Georgia Tech. We (here at least) can hope for wins! Yet we are still in the midst of the college football season (about the halfway point right about now) and so let us get to it. These are my latest rankings:

1. Georgia (7-0)
2. Michigan (7-0)
3. Oklahoma (8-0)
4. Cincinnati (7-0)
5. Michigan State (7-0)
6. Alabama (7-1)
7. Oregon (6-1)
8. Ohio State (6-1)
9. SMU (7-0)
10. Wake Forest (7-0)

There are a number of one loss teams that I want to include here (and we'll look at them below) but for now I'm still giving credence to unbeaten teams. The top of which remains my Dawgs. Hope upon hope, they will remain so after facing Florida this coming weekend. I allowed Michigan to jump Oklahoma this week because I was not impressed with the Sooners first half against Iowa State. That said, their second half put the pedal to the medal. Michigan will get their own test this coming weekend against Michigan State, here ranked 5th. One of them will remain unbeaten. And I'm still being kind to Cincinnati. But they remain high in the actual polls (and who knows where they will be ranked when the playoff committee gives us their view in a week.)

For 6 through 8, it has to be this order. Bama remains Bama even with their one loss. Most polls have them in the top 5. And you still cannot rank Ohio State ahead of Oregon due to their head to head match-up. Oregon beat Ohio State...on the road! I do believe that Ohio State is the better team, but they were not on that day. As for SMU and Wake Forest...I am again being kind but they remain undefeated and 7-0 is 7-0. I think SMU beats Wake Forest should they meet up, so I put them first, but who knows? They both finally meet the beef of their schedule coming up so we shall see.

As for those I wanted to rank, they are all 6-1. Baylor, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Pitt, Iowa, Notre Dame and Oklahoma State (even after their loss this weekend.) Of these, I think Notre Dame and Baylor have the best chance to crack the top 10 given what they do going down the pike. Pittsburgh still has a shot to knock off Wake Forest and Ole Miss still has enough in front of them to make a statement. It is also possible (somehow) for Kentucky to make a statement but it will take some help.

All in all, this weekend looks like a corker. You've got Georgia/Florida, Michigan/Michigan State, Ohio State/Penn State, Baylor/Texas and Ole Miss/Auburn. Not to mention game 4 of the World Series on Saturday! I'm already thinking of my sportsgasm menu. What is yours? That is all.

Oscarblogging - Paul Newman

It has been some time since I posted about the Oscars for reasons best left unsaid. Suffice to say they do not really mean as much to me now as they once did. I used to pay attention every year but not as much anymore. However, the history of them remains interesting to me and having gone down a rabbit hole thanks to The Ringer doing a podcast on The Color of Money, I happily dug in. Especially on my favorite actor Paul Newman. Infamously he would win this Oscar in 1986 for that film after 6 times not winning for (arguably) better roles/performances.

I must backtrack slightly and say that one of the things that fascinate me about the Oscars are the wins/losses, so many or lack thereof and how they went down year in and year out when looking back at them. It astounds me that Peter O'Toole never won an Oscar (and I've blogged on this in the past.) So too Richard Burton. Not one win in seven tries. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar with five nominations. Arguably one of the greatest directors of the 20th Century. Glenn Close has never won an Oscar after eight nominations (pushing O'Toole.) To me, the one that kills is Al Pacino. He'd been nominated 6 times without a win and then got both 7 and 8 in 1993. He would finally win, but for the wrong film. (Note, he now has a ninth nomination but still just the one acting Oscar.)

But this post is dedicated to Newman (so it will surely be 12 times better than any other post.) In total, Paul Newman was nominated nine times between 1959 and 2003 before his death in 2008. And perhaps outside of his role in Sweet Bird of Youth in 1962, he was almost always given a nod when deserved (well, more on that below.) As before, what I want to do here is look back at each of these "contests" and see if the outcome was deserved or not. If nothing else, it gives me a chance to look back at some amazing films and at the worst, allows me to judge both the Oscar voters and the times in which these votes were made. So, we begin at the beginning:

1959

• David Niven – Separate Tables as Major David Angus Pollock
  • Tony Curtis – The Defiant Ones as John "Joker" Jackson
  • Paul Newman – Cat on a Hot Tin Roof as Brick Pollitt
  • Sidney Poitier – The Defiant Ones as Noah Cullen
  • Spencer Tracy – The Old Man and the Sea as The Old Man

Firstly, I must say here that I have sadly never seen The Defiant Ones. To my shame. That said, I have to think that Curtis and Poitier cut into each other's votes here. Poitier would go on to win an Oscar (which we will cover below.) This was Tony Curtis' only nomination. Spencer Tracy was nearing the end of his terribly successful career and had already won twice (and never would win again...shades of Bette Davis.) And Niven? I have seen Separate Tables and while I love the actor, the work itself does not hold up terribly well. Prestige picture, sure. Maybe ahead of its time given the subject matter. But to compete with one of the great Tennessee Williams plays? This is a year in which Gigi won Best Picture and Elizabeth Taylor did not even win Best Actress for her role in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I have to say, right off the bat, this was a miss. Maybe it should not have been Newman compared to Curtis or Poitier, but the eventual winner seems weak.

I'll call this a +1 in his favor.

1962

• Maximilian Schell – Judgment at Nuremberg as Hans Rolfe
  • Charles Boyer – Fanny as César
  • Paul Newman – The Hustler as Eddie Felson
  • Spencer Tracy – Judgment at Nuremberg as Dan Haywood
  • Stuart Whitman – The Mark as Jim Fuller

We're still early on in my film watching career so I've never seen César or The Mark. Boyer is a great actor and also never won an Oscar but this was his fourth nomination (most notably to me for Gaslight in 1944.) Whitman is most definitely a "that guy" and this would be his only nomination. So this contest comes down to the two films. As always, one must look at two actors nominated from the same film so it is impressive that Schell pulled out the win. But again, Tracy is nominated and having already won 2, maybe did not get the votes he might otherwise deserve. To me, this is one of Newman's iconic roles (which would later give him his actual Oscar) but I have to admit if I am looking at this objectively, I would probably give my vote to Tracy. So another fail. I think Schell is great, but Tracy is better. And so is Newman.

I'll call this a +0 because it would not have necessarily gone to Newman if Schell doesn't win.

1964

• Sidney Poitier – Lilies of the Field as Homer Smith
  • Albert Finney – Tom Jones as Tom Jones
  • Richard Harris – This Sporting Life as Frank Machin
  • Rex Harrison – Cleopatra as Julius Caesar
  • Paul Newman – Hud as Hud Bannon

I really cannot fault this year. Five great actors in five great films. While some might push for Finney here, I think this was a two man contest and the best man/performance won. Don't get me wrong, Newman is amazing in Hud (as is the great Patricia Neal who would win Best Actress for her performance) but Poitier cements himself as a power in both race and talent and I would not change this result in any way.

Call it another +0 because the right man won.

1968

• Rod Steiger – In the Heat of the Night as Police Chief Bill Gillespie
  • Warren Beatty – Bonnie and Clyde as Clyde Barrow
  • Dustin Hoffman – The Graduate as Benjamin Braddock
  • Paul Newman – Cool Hand Luke as Lucas "Cool Hand Luke" Jackson
  • Spencer Tracy (posthumous nomination) – Guess Who's Coming to Dinner as Matt Drayton

To me, this year is the oddest contest. I love Hoffman and he deserves his nomination, but he is the least deserving of these five great actors. And Beatty is amazing even if he is not one of my overall favorites. The oddest thing is that Poitier was NOT nominated and Steiger was (much less won the thing.) It was, obviously, a year in which race relations were widely considered and rightly so. Thus, Tracy certainly deserved his rightly given nomination even if he had died by this time. If both Steiger and Poitier had been nominated, I can see a split vote. But that only Steiger got the nod, I guess he eeks out the win.

All of this is backdrop to me to one of the greatest Newman performances of all time! It is his greatest performance and his most iconic role in a career of many. It's my 2nd favorite performance of his career (again, more below) and that it was even a contest is shocking to me. I suppose we can assume "timeliness" and all of that, but it doesn't make it right. This should have been Paul's all day long.

I give this a +4 in Newman's favor because he was better than any of the others to my mind.

1982

• Henry Fonda – On Golden Pond as Norman Thayer Jr.
  • Warren Beatty – Reds as John Silas "Jack" Reed
  • Burt Lancaster – Atlantic City as Lou Pascal
  • Dudley Moore – Arthur as Arthur Bach
  • Paul Newman – Absence of Malice as Michael Gallagher

I can't argue with these results in any way. It says something that Newman went over a decade without a nomination (and again...more below) but these are some amazing performances and Fonda absolutely deserved this nod and win! Here's another that had a long career without the recognition he likely deserved. I'm not a huge fan of Reds but Beatty deserved this and Lancaster is great in his film. More than anything, I love Arthur and Moore. It is one of my favorite films of all time and I'm just happy he got the nod for his performance. Newman too deserves his nod this year, but the right man won. Easy and hands down.

Definitely a +0 for Newman here.

1983

• Ben Kingsley – Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi
  • Dustin Hoffman – Tootsie as Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels
  • Jack Lemmon – Missing as Edmund Horman
  • Paul Newman – The Verdict as Frank Galvin
  • Peter O'Toole – My Favorite Year as Alan Swann

Just damn! One of the toughest contests of Newman's career. These are five iconic performances from five amazing actors. I'm sad to say, as much as I love these actors, Lemmon and O'Toole are also rans here. They are great, but the real winner should have been Hoffman for Tootsie. Newman is awesome in The Verdict, but Hoffman goes all out. Did they cancel each other out? Hard to say. And Kingsley? I cannot fault his win here because it is an amazing performance in an amazing film.

Honestly I would rank them Hoffman, Kingsley, Newman, O'Toole and then Lemmon. And I'll watch any film of theirs at any time. All five I consider my favorite actors!

Got to call this a +0 for Newman. He wasn't going to win.

1987

• Paul Newman – The Color of Money as "Fast Eddie" Felson
  • Dexter Gordon – Round Midnight as Dale Turner
  • Bob Hoskins – Mona Lisa as George
  • William Hurt – Children of a Lesser God as James Leeds
  • James Woods – Salvador as Richard Boyle

It has been suggested over the years that this was a gimme Oscar. I think that is wrong. Paul finally gets his recognition by the Academy. Rightfully so. These are all great performances (most especially to me by Dexter Gordon, but he was an enlightened choice by the nominating committee...he wasn't going to win.) The interesting thing this year was William Hurt. At the time, he was in the midst if a five year run of amazing performances with all accolades given and deservedly so. He'd just won the Oscar the previous year for Kiss of the Spider Woman and would be nominated again the next year for Broadcast News. That, to me, is the only thing that suggests it might be a gimme Oscar for Newman. Marlee Matlin would win for Best Actress (which I might have given to Sissy Spacek for Crimes of the Heart or Sigourney Weaver for Aliens...but so be it) and it was clear this was a well considered film. But Newman had never won.

Like John Wayne for True Grit or Pacino in Scent of a Woman, it is understandable that Newman would get this ultimate nod finally. In my mind, he deserved it more than either of those two for their winning roles. And he joins a small group of people nominated twice for the same role (again, Pacino in The Godfather.) It is an amazing film (and the reason I'm blogging about it today) but as I look back at his career, it does look a bit as a gimme. By my count, he should have already won once, if not twice (and he did not even compete in some other instances...once more...see below.) I'll take the win.

No need to give a plus or minus here because he won.

1995

• Tom Hanks – Forrest Gump as Forrest Gump
  • Morgan Freeman – The Shawshank Redemption as Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding
  • Nigel Hawthorne – The Madness of King George as King George III of the United Kingdom
  • Paul Newman – Nobody's Fool as Donald "Sully" Sullivan
  • John Travolta – Pulp Fiction as Vincent Vega

OK. This is one of the most egregious years ever. Look, I love Tom Hanks and I enjoy Forrest Gump, but please! Hawthorne was amazing, no question about it. And Travolta? He was lucky to get this nod as much as I enjoy that film. This is a two man race and neither man won. We are talking about two of my favorite films and two of my favorite performances. It's hard for me to say which I might have voted for at the time should I have a vote, but I nudge towards Newman. Freeman should have won, in my mind, but I would have been happy (and rooted for) Newman to pick up a 2nd. I guess they felt he already had one now and Freeman would have to wait (as he would eventually win for Million Dollar Baby.)

What to give this one? Hmm. I guess a +1 because he should have had a shot.

2003

• Chris Cooper – Adaptation as John Laroche
  • Ed Harris – The Hours as Richard "Richie" Brown
  • Paul Newman – Road to Perdition as John Rooney
  • John C. Reilly – Chicago as Amos Hart
  • Christopher Walken – Catch Me If You Can as Frank Abagnale Sr.

I've no problem with this, especially because this was a Supporting Actor nomination. Prior to this, Newman was always nominated for Best Actor. This last was just the Academy being the Academy. Long time famous actor that does something interesting? Sure...why not. Look at Meryl Streep (and don't get me wrong, I love her!) I think the only competition here was between Cooper and Walken. The right man won.

Call it another +0.

So...what to make of all of this?

Nothing really since Paul finally got his Oscar. But I keep saying more later and here's where we get into that. Two years after Newman was nominated for Cool Hand Luke, he was NOT nominated for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It's only my favorite film of his and not only was he not nominated, neither was Redford. Instead, here was that year's roster:

• John Wayne – True Grit as Rooster Cogburn
  • Richard Burton – Anne of the Thousand Days as King Henry VIII of England
  • Dustin Hoffman – Midnight Cowboy as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo
  • Peter O'Toole – Goodbye, Mr. Chips as Arthur Chipping
  • Jon Voight – Midnight Cowboy as Joe Buck

Do you see the miss here? Burton, Hoffman, and Voight definitely deserved their nominations. I love O'Toole, so...OK. Wayne! And he won. How is Newman not nominated here??

+2 here because Hoffman and Voight likely deserved this and Burton was still on his losing streak.

Now how about 1973...

That year the Best Actor race was:

• Jack Lemmon – Save the Tiger as Harry Stoner
  • Marlon Brando – Last Tango in Paris as Paul
  • Jack Nicholson – The Last Detail as Billy "Badass" Buddusky
  • Al Pacino – Serpico as Frank Serpico
  • Robert Redford – The Sting as Johnny Hooker

I've no problem with the winner here or any of these nominations except that Newman is better than Redford in The Sting (AND the film itself won Best Picture.) As much as I love Brando, Newman should have had that slot and we'd still see the same winner. After all, Lemmon is one of the greats and this is one of his greats (and his second Oscar after Mr. Roberts.) Brando already had 2 after On the Waterfront and The Godfather, Nicholson had 1 from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (on his way to 3 with Terms of Endearment and As Good As it Gets) and Pacino was still on his losing streak. Redford has never won an acting Oscar (this was his only nomination) so he would wait to win for Ordinary People in 1980 as Director (and even there...Raging Bull anyone?)

So the way I see it, Paul Newman should have 3 competitive Oscars (and at least 2 more nominations.) I'll take the win for The Color of Money and add a win for Cool Hand Luke and Nobody's Fool (and possibly a 4th for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.) Honestly, he should have been nominated and then won for Butch Cassidy. He certainly deserved them and this is, of course, an exercise in what if. It wasn't. After all, and again, Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Burton never won an Oscar. O'Toole never won one. At least Paul got his the one time.

Feel free to offer your own opinions about such as I welcome them and if there is another you are interested in me looking at (as if you couldn't) please let know. But I went down a rabbit hole this morning and this is what I came up with. A whole slew of Hollywood history, films, actors and actresses and I find all of that interesting even if the Oscars mean nothing. So there is that. And...that is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 8

Yesterday was a good day, all told. Both of my local teams won and it's not too often that happens here. The Braves win was awesome, but for these purposes we're talking the Dawgs and yes...another resounding victory for what is clearly the best team in the country. I could do without some penalties and I'm still not sold on Stetson Bennett, but he played a great game and indeed he can use his legs.

For the rest of college football, things did not go so well. We'll get to that below so let's go ahead and list my latest scientific and oh so accurate top 10 list:

1. Georgia (7-0)
2. Oklahoma (7-0)
3. Michigan (6-0)
4. Cincinnati (6-0)
5. Oklahoma State (6-0)
6. Michigan State (7-0)
7. Alabama (6-1)
8. Penn State (5-1)
9. Oregon (5-1)
10. Ohio State (5-1)

I've already said my words on the Georgia victory and no team can really lay claim to the top spot right now other than them. Oklahoma is looking better week by week and may have found the QB to keep their offense going (still a question, but the talent is there) and Michigan didn't play. Loathe as I am to give Harbaugh any love, the Wolverines remain undefeated (for now) and so why shouldn't they be here? I'm not letting Cincy get any higher than 4th here because of their conference and schedule, so keep winning and enjoy a shot at my hypothetical playoff.

As for the rest, I allowed OK State to jump Michigan State because a comeback victory over Texas (now 4-2) means more than a near run thing against what was supposed to be a good Indiana team (now 2-4). This should be a byline, but Bama remains Bama (except for that loss to A&M.) That said, and on that score...what to make of the Florida loss to LSU? Are the Gators just talented enough to lose a close game, or does Bama have enough flaws that a just talented enough team can take them to the wire? Again...see the A&M game.

After that, we get into the other one loss teams. Once more apologies to your other unbeatens. Wake Forest (6-0) gets at shot at Army (4-2) this next week. SMU (6-0) is playing Tulane (1-5). And sure, Coastal Carolina (6-0) is at App State (4-2). But I don't see any of these teams being competitive with those I am placing in this top 10 list. So we begin ranking the one loss programs and I still say Penn State has some legs. They were off this week and still don't get a real test until later in the season but I'll keep them here. And while I think Ohio State is the better team, they still lost to Oregon. This ranking has to be this way.

I am still (and always) looking at who might crack this list and that includes Baylor (6-1) that took BYU (5-2) down another notch. It includes Ole Miss (5-1) that snuck out (and nearly got clobbered by golf balls and who knows what else) a win at Tennessee (4-3)...a team I think that is much improved even if their fans may not be. It still includes Kentucky (now 6-1) because they were not embarrassed and should not be dinged too much for losing to the top team in the country. I'm looking at a 5-1 Pitt all the sudden that plays Clemson (4-2) this next week. And Iowa (now 6-1)...wow! OK. My eyes are still there, and Purdue (4-2) can upset every now and then, but you just went from almost ran to why were we talking about you? Plus...Notre Dame is still sneaking around at 5-1. Their schedule doesn't look as good as it might at the start of the season, but their only loss is the highly ranked Cincy and they beat a ranked Wisconsin, a Purdue that just beat #2 Iowa and still have USC, UNC and Stanford on their list. Never underestimate the Playoff Committee's love for the Fighting Irish.

Overall, I think this is a solid top 10 given what we have seen thus far this year. Your networks are trying to tell you that Cincinnati is #2. They are wrong. They are also trying to say that your usual suspects will be back when Oklahoma, Ohio State and Bama get back into the picture. They are not so wrong there. One thing is clear...we won't be seeing Clemson in the playoffs but I'm not so sure these other usual suspects will be either. The Big 10 still has their late date round robin tourney and OK/OK State is still out there. For the SEC, Georgia pretty much punched their ticket to the championship game this week barring a complete collapse and as I see it, the only team able to topple Alabama in the West is Auburn (now 5-2) if they could win the Iron Bowl.

There is a lot more football to be played and I'll be there for it all (should you care whatsoever about my opinion my awesome two and a half readers!) Stay tuned and as always...that is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 7

So THAT was an eventful Saturday, wasn't it? 3 of my top 10 went down, not least of which was #1 Bama to Texas A&M. Dammit! I did not want my Dawgs ranked 1st, but now I have no choice. I don't mind saying, I had my doubts about Georgia early on against Auburn, but it turned out fine after a 34-10 victory. I will say that I continue to have little trust in Stetson Bennett as QB for a potential National Championship team, but I'll give him credit. He can run and I was more impressed with his arm after this last game. Here is some food for thought...in many of the years in which Bama ran the table and won or played for championships, the QB didn't really matter because there were so many other talents on the team. Just plug and play because everything around will elevate. I suppose that could be the case here, but I don't like taking that chance. Anyway, we've had some shake up and so here is my latest top 10:

1. Georgia (6-0)
2. Iowa (6-0)
3. Oklahoma (6-0)
4. Cincinnati (5-0)
5. Michigan (6-0)
6. Michigan State (6-0)
7. Oklahoma State (5-0)
8. Kentucky (6-0)
9. Alabama (5-1)
10. Penn State (5-1)

There can be little doubt that Georgia should be ranked number 1 at this moment. No team this year has looked as total as this Dawgs team and while the offense remains a little doubtful at moments, the defense remains all world. More to that, only Bama and Iowa have as many victories against ranked opponents with three for each. The Clemson victory looks less now, but they were highly ranked when we played and there is a chance for a fourth when Georgia plays Kentucky this next weekend.

As for Iowa, and while it was close, a victory against a top 10 team counts every time and so they naturally get the second spot. I must say that I am skeptical of this #3 ranking for Oklahoma, but that come back against Texas was rather epic and so I'll leave them high. And for Cincy...let's just say that I am being kind. For Michigan, this is likely too high given that they nearly lost to Nebraska, but for now I'll place them here knowing there are later dates with Ohio State, Michigan State and Penn State. With the Spartans ranked next, the sorting will work itself out as the season progresses.

OK State did not play this Saturday and so missed out on upset watch. They can breath easy for now until they visit Texas (4-2) this next Saturday and Kentucky is flying high after their victory at LSU (3-3). As I understand, this is the first time they have been 6-0 since the 1940's. Good for them but I think this ends on the 16th. As for the last two spots? Well, here's my thinking...

You are going to see Alabama still in the top 5 in most polls, most especially the AP and Coaches that come out today. Is that fair? Has their #1 ranking been due to their many long years of dominance or what they have done thus far this year? That said, if Bama played Iowa, Oklahoma or Cincinnati tomorrow who do you think would win? My ranking of 9 is probably too low for them because they remain with a plethora of talent and are still likely the second best team in the country. But they did lose yesterday. To a Texas A&M (4-2) team that lost pretty decisively against Arkansas (4-2)...that just lost to Ole Miss (4-1) in a shoot out...after the Rebels were destroyed by Bama the previous week. Welcome to the SEC where we eat our own week in and week out. It is a grind and other conferences should be so lucky to have so much talent.

The only other one that can lay claim to a top spot is the Big 10. Thus I will not ding Penn State too much for losing, and closely, to the aforementioned Iowa on Saturday. As stated, their round robin will start a bit later because there are still only four or five teams that could challenge and they are nearly all in the East side of that conference. Look, Ohio State (4-1) looked awesome yesterday. They likely deserve to be in this ranking. But they lost to Oregon (4-1) already and if I'm going to rank them, I have to rank Oregon before THE Ohio State (is there some question about which Ohio State team is which, by the way?) Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State will all face each other before everything is said and done. That will be telling and given that all are (or should be) highly ranked, it bodes well for the Big 10 getting into the playoffs.

As for your other unbeaten teams, there are five. Here I will list them...SMU (6-0) in the AAC, Wake Forest (6-0) in the ACC, UTSA (6-0) in Conference USA, San Diego State (5-0) in the Mountain West and Coastal Carolina (6-0) in the Sun Belt. I'll just ask this question...Arkansas has now lost to both Georgia and Ole Miss. and if they were to play any of these unbeaten teams, who do you think would win? OK, you say, maybe Arkansas wasn't as billed. How about Tennessee, now 4-2 as well? Florida (4-2)? Mississippi State (3-2)? SMU still has to play Cincinnati and Wake Forest has not even played either North Carolina schools much less Clemson. Sorry, but those unbeaten records will not last. As for the others...look, if you're a fan then I'm happy for you. As they say in the South, bless your heart.

So another week down and more separation between the contenders and the pretenders. This next weekend will see more. GA/Kentucky, OK State/Texas and one I think should be looked at BYU/Baylor. Both are 5-1 now. Outside of Michigan State at Indiana (2-3), it appears the rest of the big boys in the Big 10 are taking the week off. We're about halfway through for most teams and this season continues to provide what we all love about college football. I have no doubt that we'll see some more of that excitement and I will try to rank accordingly. That is all.

The Many Saints of Newark

Those two and a half readers of mine may recall that I was a huge fan of the HBO show The Sopranos. To me, it is the greatest show ever put to television (and yes, Breaking Bad is 1b.) You can drill back and find my reviews of the last seasons and certainly my most read and commented upon post here was my reaction to the series finale. Now, here we are many years after that finale and have a prequel film written by David Chase. What follows is a (sort-of) cross post from the place I spent most of time during those years - the great Sopranos forum The Chase Lounge (where I remain a moderator and admin.) If some of it sounds too familiar to the reader, that is why.

[Note - At the end of this post, I will add some spoilery so beware when you get to that point!]

So now, the review...

Short answer, I enjoyed it. Longer answer below.

I will state that I am of mixed emotions about it, to be sure. You will note that I did not say that I loved it above. I did not. Nor did I hate it. I think it was true to the spirit of the original show yet any one episode (outside of the few we might all agree were subpar) would have been (and was) more enjoyable, deeper in themes and ideas and simply better acted all the way round. All that said, it was nice to have (some of) the gang back. And do not get me wrong. There are some stand out performances in this movie. I think the main one would be Vera Farmigna as Livia Soprano. She does an excellent job trying to match the tone of Nancy Marchand without moving into parody. Body language and intent are all there and even allows some pathos seeing how Livia would become what we would see as the show began. Alessandro Nivolo is also a stand out as Dickie Moltisanti. There are some differences in what we see of him in this film from what we were told about him on the show, but it was highly interesting to follow his footsteps and entertaining (despite some of his actions) to actually see a character we never saw on the show itself. Finally, one must single out Michael Gandolfini as the younger teenage Tony. Obviously he resembles his father in both looks and actions so he fits perfectly in as the younger Tony. As well, I cannot imagine any one of us does not have somewhat of a bittersweet emotion seeing him inhabit this role.

The other younger versions of themselves were less successful, by and large. All of the actors did their best to find the motions and even in some cases the voice of the characters we grew to know and (sometimes) love on the show but at moments they do verge on parody or perhaps a well done SNL skit. The actor that plays the younger Silvio has his mannerisms and vocal tics down to the smallest thing (and it was humorous to show when and how he began wearing a wig) but at moments it takes you out of the piece. So too the younger Paulie and possibly even the younger Pussy. I could say the same thing about Corey Stoll as the younger Junior but at times he really does offer some excellent moments. You do get a brief shot of the young Carmela, the young Artie Bucco and even a blink and you'll miss it bit of Jackie Aprile. There is no sign of Ralphie Cifaretto or Tony B. And speaking of that, I did not think that Joanne Blundetto Moltisanti would have been old enough to be a peer to Livia but they do portray it that way here so a little bit of continuity blown there but not enough to kill anything.

I should also single out Ray Liotta playing a duel role here as the twin elder Moltisanti brothers. Firstly it is about time he enjoyed the entire rest of the cast of Goodfellas in finally joining the Sopranos universe and second I think he acquits himself well here even if his chops might not be as sharp as they once were. Lastly, I think that Leslie Odom, Jr. is excellent in his time as at first a soldier to Dickie and then later a rival. That said, Chase still does not know quite what to do with race in the world of the mafia. It's not poorly done, but not enough space was perhaps given here to fully flesh out what he attempted. Perhaps if this was stretched out to a full season rather than nearly two hour film.

Now on to the meat of the film:

This was billed as "how Tony got his start" but by now you surely know that it is really no such thing. The film belongs to the character of Dickie Moltisanti. It follows his rise and inevitable fall (no spoiler there) and only shows Tony's reaction to it from time to time, first as a small child and then later as a teen. I honestly do not have a problem with that except for the mislabeled pitch. As stated, Nivolo is excellent as Dickie and Chase takes him through his paces as he at first deals with his father, then his rivals and lastly with his girlfriend (and sometimes all of them together.) In the show, we were led to believe that Dickie was a junkie just like Christopher would later turn out to be, but this is not portrayed here. Now that could just be another lie Tony would later tell Christopher or it could be a missed opportunity for Chase to remember all of the things he put out there back in the show. However, what IS shown is just as troublesome. I will not spoil any of that in this thread, but if you thought Tony had some terrible traits, you will see a lot of that as well with his "uncle Dickie." Can we say that Tony learned such from him? I doubt it since Tony is rarely around when Dickie is doing these things (unlike when he sees Johnny Boy chop off Satriales finger or get arrested at the circus...which is somewhat recreated here.) But maybe he later heard the stories. Who can say?

And speaking of Johnny Boy, he's really not in the film that much which was a bit disappointing. I grew to love the actor that played Johnny in the flashbacks on the show and while this actor is good, he just isn't given much to do other than fill the beats of things we've already heard about him (yes, we do get a scene of when he shot through Livia's hair bun.) In many respects, what Chase has floated here is that it was Dickie as much if not more that was the natural father figure to Tony which both fits somewhat what we know of Tony's troubled relationship with his father but also contradicts the same at the same time. The real truth is that Dickie was fleshed out so little as a remembered character on the show, Chase had plenty of a blank slate to work with whereas he had only limited room with Johnny and Livia. Again, maybe not a missed opportunity but not enough time to truly explore these complex relationships as it relates to Tony and then later to Christopher.

And here is where my real beef comes into it...the framing device used. It is Christopher that narrates during the film. From beyond the grave. Knowing nothing about his father outside of what lies he's been told. Now true...who knows what we find out in the afterlife? And sure, it is surely tempting to try and tie this film to at least once actual actor that was in the original show. But it is the least workable aspect of the film. I just don't buy it. AND that it comes and goes, it's not even used particularly well. Sure, if Gandolfini were still alive, I can see the use of this narrative device. But Chase no longer has that luxury and should not have tried to shoehorn another into that role.

I'll say that Alan Taylor's direction is to his usual excellent ability and the music, as always is used well. Perhaps too much at times, but well. There remains no doubt that Chase still belongs to the Scorsese school of using rock music and liberally for his mafia stories. Locations were often quite nostalgic and I'm sure some would say too much as easter eggs throughout but I found them welcoming. I was a little confused about the house the Sopranos live in when Tony is a teen because I thought that would be the one used at the start of the show, but things could have changed between the 70s and 90s.

Overall, I really enjoyed this extra glimpse into the universe so many of us spent hours and hours considering many years ago. It brought back many memories and I'm sure I'll have more to say as I re-watch and/or read what others have to say. If you want to read some of the more spoilery things, you can go to The Chase Lounge, but I will say this here on my own platform...

 

AND YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED...

 

It turns out is was Junior that called the hit on Dickie! I would have never guessed that even if it fits his personality in every way. So good on ye there, Chase. An inspired choice, especially since he puts out a hit on his own nephew many years later (a failed one, but "cunnilingus and psychiatry brought us to this!") 

So for this review, these are my two boxes of ziti. A good movie, but not great. Certainly worth my watch. That is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 6

At this date in the season, there are clearly two great teams and then everyone else. This is not a hot take or a controversial opinion. Coming into this weekend, Bama and Georgia had games which could have been a test and if so, they both aced it. Georgia beat their second top 10 ranked team this season and while Ole Miss wasn't ranked in the top 10, they easily could have been and after last year, Saban definitely said that would not happen again. Neither game appeared to be a contest. Arkansas and Ole Miss are both good teams. Neither looked it yesterday because of who they played. So there is a definitive top 2. And then the rest...

1. Alabama (5-0)
2. Georgia (5-0)
3. Penn State (5-0)
4. Oklahoma (5-0)
5. Iowa (5-0)
6. Cincinnati (4-0)
7. Michigan (5-0)
8. Oklahoma State (5-0)
9. BYU (5-0)
10. Michigan State (5-0)

While I might jump Georgia over Alabama due to personal bias, I won't at the moment. I maintain...Bama will be ranked ahead of the Dawgs until Kirby finally beats his mentor (and it will happen...eventually.) As for the rest, I have been high on Penn State all season and remain there. For them, next week will be a real test and we'll see who is who when they face Iowa. Oklahoma won at Kansas State and while it wasn't a blow out, the Sooners remain the Sooners. They face Texas next weekend. No matter where Sark has the Longhorns, it's still Oklahoma vs. Texas.

A small word (and I do mean small) about Cincy...their victory over Notre Dame yesterday vindicates somewhat their lofty ranking. That said...who else have they beat? Who else will they beat that helps their strength of schedule? I do not really think Cincinnati is the top 6 team in the country. But they are ranked high in the national polls and will likely be (if they keep winning) in the playoff poll when it comes out in November. So for now they will remain in this spot.

As for the last four, it is a crapshoot. I dropped Ohio State from the top 10 because I had to drop Oregon out after their loss to Stanford yesterday. Head to head matters and while, in the long term, I think Ohio State is the better team it remains - Oregon beat Ohio State. So let us then bring in some new blood. All four of these last teams have looked good so far this season but even after a month, the season is still early. And at this point, being unbeaten matters as well. That said, you're probably not happy with me if you're a fan of Kentucky (now 5-0 after beating Florida) or SMU (beat USF 41-17 yesterday and remain undefeated so far) or Wake Forest (no...I really don't have anything for here) or whomever else you like. I will stand by this ranking. At the moment. And then watch the rest of the season play out and rank accordingly. I will bet right now...these top 2 will continue to be the top 2 all the way to the SEC Championship Game. And when that is over and one of them has lost? They will still be the top 2. No one else looks close. That is all.