Where do we stand?

So that happened. Much like the Wisconsin game, I didn’t expect Michigan to win, but also didn’t expect to see such a disappointing effort. It’s been so long since the Wolverines beat Ohio State that I would think Buckeye fans are starting to get annoyed with how lopsided this “rivalry” has become lately.

But sticking with the initial question, what do we make of this season? On the one hand, Michigan has finished with a winning record and will advance to play in a bowl game. On the other, we have a team that had one of the worst defenses in all of division I-A and were blown out in the last two big games of the season. I have heard and read a lot of talk about how Rich Rodriguez should be fired, and I’m somewhat surprised by that sentiment.

I have never been a fan of Rich Rod, but I always felt like everyone was against him since he arrived. I always viewed him as a snake oil salesman, but he has busted his ass trying to win. This season saw a trip to the postseason, yet people are still calling for his head. Other than Penn State, was anyone surprised by this team’s record this year? I was disappointed by the final two games, but even the sainted Lloyd Carr would have lost those games with this group of guys.

I would like to see Rich Rod get one more year to provide his worth. He would have a full recruiting cycle under his belt and we can see how well the players respond with the coveted extra three weeks of practice before the bowl game.

Even if you want him fired, who do you get to replace him? There aren’t many attractive names out there at the moment. Jim Harbaugh’s name comes up all the time, but he isn’t interested in coming. And even if Harbaugh did come, would people put up with another 3-9 season as he installs a pro style offense? I doubt it. But if Rich can’t beat the Sparties next year, send him packing.

Game On!

It seems that we have spent a lot of time recently playing board games. We try to have a game night every couple of months and take a break from all the cell phones and video games. Our favorites have always been Scategories, Scrabble, Risk and Outburst. While these are all older games, we have tried looking for new ones with not much success. Tracy bought two called Guesstures and Buzzword and we tried them out at a recent party. The former is a fast-paced game of charades and the later is a call0out game where all the answers have something in common. They are decent for groups, but you need to have a majority of extroverts to be successful.

But the one we found that has been met with universal success is Apples to Apples. This is the ideal party game, as more people means more fun. Each person is dealt seven red cards that have various nouns on them: New York City, pocket lint, Abraham Lincoln. Each person takes a turn placing a green card in the center of the table that has an adjective on it, such as manic, trustworthy, etc. Each person takes a turn throwing down a green card, and then judges the anonymous responses from everyone else and selects a winner.

I think the best part of the game is that each person judges the winners differently. Tracy will usually pick something close to the definition, but I tend to pick more creative or “stretch” responses. The strategy for winning is trying to determine how people will choose, so it becomes similar to poker where is it more about reading your opponents. I’m glad we were able to find this game, as we haven’t been able to locate a new version of Outburst in the stores. If anyone has a version with all the cards and willing to part with it, let me know.

Mad Men, Good Times

This is the second installment in my attempt to catch up on TV shows I missed over the years. At least this time I am somewhat closer to relevancy, as the last time I focused on a show that had already ended its run on TV. I just finished watching the third season of Mad Men on Netflix, which was the last one available on DVD (although season four just ended on AMC).

As a history major, one of my favorite time periods in American history was the early Cold War. I was intrigued by how historically accurate the show would be, and the focus on advertising was of little interest to me. I was disappointed that historical events take a back seat to the goings-on at Sterling Cooper, but some of the larger issues like gender equality do have an impact in every episode.

I’ll admit I almost gave up on the show after watching the first season. I found the pacing to be glacial and I found myself asking at the end of every episode, “did anything happen?!” But I stuck it out and I’m glad I did. Seasons two and three were very compelling, as the characters were established and the plots could build off their interpersonal relationships. Initially I wanted more storylines around the accounts at Sterling Cooper, but now I really don’t care about the accounts (although we need a good Don presentation every now and then) but more about how the characters evolve.

On the surface, Don Draper is the coolest character on TV. But below the surface, he is a deeply conflicted character and I’m not so sure I would want to be in his shoes. While it would be fun to sleep around with beautiful women and drink on the job, he seems to do both out of necessity rather than enjoyment. He is a man of few words, but his command of any room he enters is impressive (love the suits!). But Peggy Olson is the real star of the show for me, as the ‘60s are shaping her more than anyone else, which pleases me. She is quite the contract to Don’s wife Betty, who I find incredibly dull and not worth the screen time she is given. I can’t determine if January Jones is a lousy actor or her character isn’t well developed (I think it’s the former), but people tell me she has a smaller part in season four.

Sorry for being late to the cultural party once again. Stay tuned for my next installment in a few months, as I move on to my next off-air show, The Wire.