Blog Archives

Throwing a “Hail Mary”

Braxton Miller.

After Miller re-injured his throwing shoulder yesterday in practice, just a couple weeks out from the season opener against Navy, there was a collective gasp that could be heard in every corner of Buckeye Nation. Potentially a season-ending injury, some are already deflating into a puddle of disappointment before the team has rushed into the Horseshoe for the first time this Fall. Understandably so, people are concerned. They should be. Braxton Miller is already a Heisman candidate based on his past successes, but we should look no further than just one year ago to find comfort.

Does the name Kenny Guiton still cause a Buckeye fan to smile?

Yes, it was in Berkeley, California last season against the Cal Bears when Kenny Guiton had a sensational display of throwing prowess for the Scarlet & Gray. Was it expected? No. Did it happen? Yes. For so many years when Jim Tressel was the head coach of the Buckeyes, literally everybody knew what play he was going to call (ironically, it rhymes with “fun”), regardless of age. Tressel had a system and, well, it worked pretty damn well. But it was predictable. These days, with Urban Meyer as the head coach (and the issue of dealing with restrictive sanctions), Ohio State has had to deal with adversity and many, many surprises. Few things in life, despite precise preparation, go exactly as planned. It’s not whether something negative will happen, but whether or not you can turn that negative into a positive (like when defensive lineman are chasing you with the game on the line).

Recall Ohio State v. Wisconsin in Columbus, Ohio in 2011?

Braxton Miller was not expected to make that kind of throw or for that to become a broken play. But it did and he had to adjust under pressure. Yes, that same Braxton Miller may miss this season because of a re-injured shoulder. It is still a “TBD” situation at this moment. However, on that same note, there are a couple backup quarterbacks who are ready and yearning for that spotlight.

And usually unforeseen greatness comes from people and situations we rarely expect.

Just ask Braxton Miller.

Two Quarterbacks Walk onto the Field…

The Ohio State Buckeyes travel to Berkeley, California this Saturday to battle the aerial arsenal that is the Cal Bears for an early season match-up between the Big Ten and the Pac-12 conferences.

It’s the Midwest vs. the West Coast.

Before the 2013 season, nearly all the hype for the Buckeyes was dedicated to their star quarterback, Braxton Miller. However, after a nasty hit in last week’s game against San Diego State that left Miller’s helmet on the field after just nine plays, head coach Urban Meyer has yet to definitively clear him to start this weekend. Miller is considered to be a game time decision.

And yet, this is, potentially, not even the biggest headline going into the game.

The most intriguing question is how much playing time will backup sensation Kenny Guiton receive? Guiton has proven to play with a style very close to that of Miller, which could open up the offensive playbook for some very fun, unusual play calls where two quarterbacks are lined up in a spread formation.

Sound familiar Buckeye fans?

The storylines for the game in Berkeley consist of many aspects, like:

  • Cal’s passing offense vs. Ohio State’s active (or reactive) nature in the secondary
  • Ohio State’s diverse rushing attack
  • Will Braxton Miller start? If so, how much will he play? How effective will he be?
  • Does Kenny Guiton start? If not, how much time might he see?
  • Will Cal’s capable rusher deflect the young “Silver Bullets?”
  • Will defense, ultimately, be a factor? Or will the Bears and Buckeyes engage in an old fashioned western shootout?
  • How influential is Cal’s home field advantage?

Still, beyond the suspected pregame analysis, what would the Buckeyes look like with two athletic quarterbacks lined up in a spread formation? Imagine the possibilities…

Everyone is talking about Plan A (with Miller) or Plan B (with Guiton).

I’m thinking of a more dynamic formula. How about A + B?

Playing with the starting quarterback and backup quarterback in formations would be a very liberal approach to the offense and I can think of no better place to experiment with such an endeavor than Berkeley, California.

In This Case, Don’t ‘Hate the Game,’ Hate the Players

“Margin Call,” “Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps” and “Quants: The Alchemists of Wall Street” are just a small handful of relatively recent released movies that expose shockingly deliberate corruption and greed in America’s financial epicenter. The two words “Wall Street” have become synonymous with (mostly) men who are power-driven to succeed only for themselves. Some may even argue Gordon Gekko would be too nice for today’s modern titan of industry. Is this stereotype fair and true for all who make a living in this four block radius? No. Yet, the perception has been set and to the casual observer, nothing is changing.

This is a big problem.

You go to the grocery store on a Tuesday afternoon and pick up orange juice, milk, cereal, yogurt, meat and vegetables. Throw in a bag of Tostitos Hint of Lime chips and a jar of mild salsa. You walk the cart to the checkout, hand the cashier money and most times you’ll receive some sort of change in return, even if it’s just a humorous penny. Monetary transactions happen every day all over the world. Each region may do so in varying degrees with different currencies, but it’s happening. This is normal. Necessary goods are provided and therefore wanted and purchased. In its simplest terms, this is capitalism.

It requires intelligence to buy the right ingredients, mix them together, cook and prepare a myriad of bakery treats for customers to buy. This could be a frosting covered superhero cookie for a well-mannered five year-old that brings a smile to his face…not to mention one to the mother’s or grandmother’s delight. Plus, the baker is able to profit a little bit for the hard work of providing a smile-ensuring treat for her communal neighbor. All of this at a fair price. This is a good story. In fact, it’s a daily event at The Tremont Goodie Shop in a wonderful suburb of Columbus, Ohio. These kinds of stores and small businesses exist all over the place. This is capitalism.

This scenario applies to businesses everywhere, whether at a surf shop in southern California or a hardware store in Minnesota or a bait shop in Louisiana or a tutoring center in South Dakota. All of these are employed by our friends, neighbors and perfectly nice strangers we simply haven’t had the pleasure of meeting yet. Shops, centers, restaurants, bakeries and stores define communities. Often, a distinguishing factor between areas that excel and those that struggle is the success of said businesses. We like capitalism and we need capitalism. It is absolutely no mystery as to why streets are nicely paved in affluent communities with flourishing businesses as opposed to the pot-hole filled avenues of areas with high unemployment and a suspect array of ‘shops.’

However, the enormous umbrella of capitalism that has sheltered, protected and enabled tens of millions upon millions of people has suffered gashes of epic proportions from a select few titans from above. In America, we now know the culprits…and yet they’re still atop their thrones.

The financial collapse of 2008, which was quietly stirring for years, eventually and immediately swung a punch to the gut of the American businessman and businesswoman. They saw their before protective umbrella receive tear after tear with rain pouring through like they’ve never seen in their lifetime. There had not been this type of economic flood in about seventy nine years.

Those who saw the storm approaching, and those that even did a surefire rain dance, seemed unfazed by this devastation. As the saying goes, “I got mine.” Except these three words are contrary to the guiding principles of capitalism. When the baker hands the grinning young boy his superhero cookie, the sentiment is a mutual, “thank you and have a nice day!”

Four years later and what’s changed? To most, nothing.

This is an excerpt from the Businessweek article, “Charities Still Love Wall Street Bankers” published on June 28, 2012:

Nonprofits often honor bankers because of their donations, says Naomi Levine, executive director of New York University’s George H. Heyman Jr. Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising. “Does this make me happy? No, it doesn’t. I look at what some of the banks and other insurance companies have done to the American economy and I’m not comfortable with it,” she says. “You try to balance your criticism of some of the things that Wall Street has done with the need.”

Like most things in life, nuances and the full circle character wheel matters. One positive attribute does not automatically excuse and/or bury from sight and memory deplorable actions. Good character is not easily earned but is greatly appreciated and acknowledged. It’s desirable…for most people anyway.

To many, there are still sharp contrasts and questions being pondered about today’s titans of industry:

Friend or Foe?
Safe or Risky?
Are we a Valued Customer or a ‘Muppet?’
Solvency or Bankruptcy?
Full Disclosure or Hidden Fees?
Truth vs. Lies
Strict Math or Statistical Manipulation?
Friendly Neighbor or Cold-Hearted Suit?

Are they at all sympathetic to our everyday struggles and understanding of our hope of providing a slightly better future for ourselves and our loved ones?

No system or institution can survive in the absence of morality. Just the mere existence of these propositions is troubling.

How does this get fixed?

Greed and hidden falsehoods is what projects from Wall Street these days, yet it shouldn’t. Most who earn a living here are hard working men and women who go through the daily grind so they, like most of us, can support their family and help send their children to college. But these stories are not told. If you watch any CNBC show, the conversations are strictly about money and stock prices. Fair enough, but where are the stories of who these trades affect? The personal narratives and identities are almost, if not completely, absent from their nonstop reporting.

Keep in mind their news cycle is 24 hours long.

The additional fact that computers and complicated formulas play such a vital role on Wall Street is unnerving and it furthers the blurring of faces and personal compassion.

There is constant discussion of new and more effective regulations for those who have deceived the market and its participants. However, 1. Free markets work best with flexibility, 2. Regulations are good and necessary, but just not an excessive amount or arbitrary in nature and 3. If the characters are the same, no regulation will transform the system as desired.

To elaborate on number 3, think about football coach Jim Tressel. During his tenure at Ohio State, he was persistently pressured to call more exciting plays. Over this time frame, a wildly creative play (by his standards) here and there was thrown in and most times had great success. But Tressel was Tressel and he was never going to change his offensive philosophy even if and when success was clearly shown on the gridiron.

In fact, as can happen to those who remain at a powerful position for a long period of time, it was revealed more than a year and a half ago that Tressel made a few bad decisions. Significant sanctions, plus him being fired, occurred as a result. It was not Ohio State that failed, but rather one of its many leaders.

Just like the financial giants who led America’s economy down to its knees, neither Tressel nor those investment bankers ever sincerely apologized for their destructive actions. Of all the coaches who you would expect to do so, he didn’t. That silence ironically spoke volumes, as did that of the CEO’s, disclosing how they truly view themselves relative to us: above it all no matter what.

If the players in the system on Wall Street are not changed, then the actions will remain about the same. Only bringing in Urban Meyer and his spread offense made Ohio State a spread offense football team. Similarly, only by recruiting a different kind of financial wizard out of business school or veteran business man or woman to lead on Wall Street will transform the mindset of the workers and culture they inhabit.

Wall Street is not the enemy. Capitalism is not perfect, but it certainly is not evil. Like in any good story, the characters are pivotal. In recent years, the characters in the financial institutions have been bad and therefore have corrupted the very system that assists millions in making college payments, affording a home mortgage, buying food, a car, paying the electric and water bills and so on.

There’s the Bear and Bull Market. Perhaps it’s time to add a Bald Eagle Market: It soars high, but not at a dangerous level. When resting, it’s protective. While it makes daring swoops to eat, it always returns to a steady and beautiful flight.

When Jay Leno has a guest that appears in what he considers a great movie, that person and the audience will know. He is genuinely happy to boast about a film’s many wonderful attributes, including an actor’s insightful portrayal.

If pressed, would you rather pay to see a major motion picture featuring Tom Hanks or Lindsay Lohan? Both are actors, but one is going to tell a much better story.

“007: Reporting for Duty”

“Quantum of Solace” left a rare bad taste in our martini aroma filled mouths and James Bond needed to redeem himself. It had a fascinating premise: control of renewable energy by an evil villain. While there are memorable scenes and action sequences (the opening chase and the walks through the desert), collectively the 22nd Bond installment of 2008 fell flat. It revealed the classic shortfalls of bad movies: lack of great characters and a mediocre script. Regardless of the number and scope of fiery explosions, they amounted to only a flicker. A modern comparison would be a film with an overuse of CGI or Computer Generated Imagery.

Without context, meaning or believability, big explosions appear 2-dimensional.

This is what Ohio State head football coach Urban Meyer said after defeating Cal earlier this year.

“The best thing about 3-0 is you get a chance to go 4-0 … and get better. I can promise you we are going to get better,” Urban Meyer said.

This brings us to November 2012. After an under-performing 22nd Bond installment, one thing was crystal clear: The best part about making the 22nd Bond movie was the chance to make the 23rd Bond movie.

“Skyfall” had to endure what no other James Bond film has, which is the realistic threat of extinction. Without delving in too deep, Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) faced bankruptcy and the entire franchise was financially starving. According to, “The Broke and the Beautiful: Bond Edition” on WSJ online, the movie studio went through bankruptcy in December 2010. With generous funding through advertising (Heineken among others), it was determined that James Bond would have to ‘die another day.’ It’s important to note that plot secrets will not be revealed in this entry, but instead includes what can be seen in the trailer or interviews with the actors before the premiere.

This is a non-spoiler commentary, aimed at those who have seen and those who have not (yet) seen “Skyfall.”

What makes “Skyfall” so appealing is the return of James Bond as portrayed by the brawny Daniel Craig. “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” had a storyline interwoven that included the professional yet emotionally vulnerable Vesper. The newest adventure takes the audience in a new direction, one with poignant overarching themes.

As the trailer above shows, James Bond has decided to enjoy his ‘death’ by living in moderate opposition to the MI6 handbook (now there’s a must-read!). The decision is made to return, but as the trailer shows, his shot is frustratingly off. He is visibly shaken. But, rest assured that villains still need his undivided attention and the diabolical, blonde haired Silva (Javier Bardem) is in his cross-hairs this time at the direction of M (Judi Dench). And there is no doubt that Silva fills the shoes of a classic Bond villain, plus some. In fact, he is one of the best Bond villains…ever.

Silva is a cyber-terrorist and is very proficient in his trade, which poses quite the challenge for Mr. Bond. The sophisticated use of computers and technology in the movie is a good representation of the primary battles and wars we will face in the not so distant future outside the movie universe. Inevitability may be the most appropriate adjective. In this good v. evil battle, there is the need to first understand the nature of this terrorism. To do so, a new and innovative perspective and tact is required. Insert the young, shaggy haired, technological wizard known as the Quartermaster, or Q for short.

The trailer shows Bond and Q sitting side by side in a museum with the following dynamics: short hair v. long hair, young v. old(er), strength v. computing and old school v. new school. As the world changes, so do the partnerships. Force can be exerted in a myriad of ways, with these variations falling within the realms of the physical and mental senses. And as with most things in life, balance is still of the up most importance.

As mentioned above, 007 must come to grips with the actualization that he has lost a step since going six feet under. Sam Mendes said he was inspired by Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of Batman. There are definitely similarities between the films that reflect this admiration of a hero having to ‘rebuild’ himself, but this story of everybody’s favorite British spy is unique to the James Bond legacy. To be clear, there is no doubt that this is a 007 movie.

Each of Craig’s three films have shown him as a Bond that is tough that, at times, exerts brute force. He may even represent a secret agent that could exist in today’s world. But within this rough and tough exterior also exists a drinking, smooth talking ladies man with room for friendship, compassion…and even love (Vesper). The personal shortfalls and emotions he experiences can be felt through the screen and have since his debut in “Casino Royale.”

Is the kind of visible despair he goes through, with Mathis and Vesper for example, good or bad for the character of James Bond?

And why does James Bond experience this? One reason for this movie may be that the 2012 007 is dealing with a very savvy 2012 villain who challenges him in ways that are difficult to anticipate. Evil is no longer restrained by powerful figures within government and its military. Like in the non-movie world, evil’s only limitations are those determined by the individual leading the charge. This is another intriguing reality portrayed in “Skyfall.” How does a government defeat an individual or group with independent resources who walk and strike without a uniform or home base?

“Skyfall” is full of  themes that resonate and action sequences that excite. Though it does not necessarily qualify as a gadget and is more of a feature, the palm printed gun that Q gives 007 in the museum is nothing short of a splendid modern day example of innovation. Only Bond’s prints can activate the trigger. Brilliant. Since it’s featured in a movie, certainly this concept has been developed and used by our men and women of the CIA.

It’s always been an assumption of mine that if we, civilians, can think of a cool gadget idea then the probability is extraordinarily high that people within the government have had the same idea, but years earlier. It’s almost unnerving to contemplate that a print locked gun is only the tip of the iceberg of inventions and ideas floating around my and surely your head. Just imagine what is being proposed and use at this very moment…

James Bond faces an incredible adversary in Silva. Not only has the world changed, but Bond too is forced to readjust. The enemy and challenge before him is unlike any he has ever faced. It’s a new chapter in the 50 year James Bond franchise.

It’s been said that businesses do their best when looking into the abyss. James Bond and its studio faced such a scenario.

I suppose you could say they navigated their abyss by means of a “skyfall.”