Would Selling Stock in the Seminoles Limit Booster Influence?

(Originally posted on ScalpEm.com)

Last Thursday, Darren Rovell of CNBC and several other news outlets reported that the Boise State University Athletic Department was going to start selling stock certificates to raise money for the athletic department.  According to Rovell, "athletic director Gene Bleymaier announced the formation of a non-profit organization (Boise State Broncos Inc.) that is seeking fans to invest in future Boise State athletic projects."

Rovell reports that fans will pay $100 a share to receive "a stock certificate as well as voting power at board meetings, where it is decided how the money will be used." Not included in the purchase are rights any bowl game money, a share of concessions from game day, any dividends or appreciation."

Basically, a share in Boise State Broncos, Inc. is a vote on the dissemination of athletic department funds.

Personally, I like this idea. Although it is not without its dilemmas. First of all, what if a rich alumnus of Boise St.'s main rival bought all the shares? Second, could the shareholders choose to keep all of the money in the athletic department and withhold it from the rest of the university? What if they reinvested the money in the football program and let the other sports to wither from lack of funding?

Once these issues get fixed, I would like to see Florida State follow the lead of Boise St. I think selling stock in the Noles would eliminate some of the sway of the Seminole Boosters. However well meaning they may proclaim themselves as being, I have never trusted the booster program. Especially after what they did during the Jeff Bowden fiasco. I don't think any one group should be able to hold a public institution's financial backing hostage pending a decision by those employed by the institution. Especially if it is based on the actions of personnel on an athletic playing field.

Although I would like to see all booster programs eliminated and donations to the university given to the highest office and then vetted down to the departments by need, not by whim, I don't think that will happen anytime soon. In the meantime we might as well use stock issuing as a way to formalize the influence and benefits of the giving process. Perhaps making the Boosters official stock holders would make their influence more "official" and lift the veil on any dope deals, secret negotiations, and payoffs that might involve university employees. Not that boosters should have a say in those decisions anyway.

I guess in the real world money really does talk.

Eulogy for the Eliminated: The Serious Tip

Dearly Beloved,

Today we lay to rest this blog. Three years is a long time to write for one web site. Especially one as varied, unpredictable, and as one reader put it "mixed bag" as this one. And so it is with a heavy heart and just a wee bit of melancholy that I am closing down The Serious Tip and moving to JordiScrubbings.com.

What exactly was The Serious Tip, anyway? Originally, this blog was going to be called "The Not So Serious Tip" - sort of a tribute to the old HBO show "Not Necessarily the News". But I figured the name was a little long and I didn't have a clue what I was going to write. I just had a name.

(For a lack of a prequel, consider this the start of my blogging history. I think I already told the story about how I read Jenn Sterger's blog and thought to myself, if she can do it, so can I. So I am not going to re-tell that part.)

So after I decided on The Serious Tip, I started writing. After a brief introduction, I actually began this blog as a humorous commentary on headlines and news events. That lasted all of one blog post. Then I started writing about sports. As a matter of fact, only four posts out of 36 during the rest of 2006 were on non-sports subjects. Writing about sports came easy, it was well-rewarded (many of my early posts were linked to on Deadspin and The Big Lead), and I always wanted to write sports commentary.

Throughout 2007 and 2008 I made a bit of a reputation for myself as a sports blogger. I cameo'ed on nearly a dozen other sites - from the small (If I Ran ...) to the successful and influential (Deadspin). I also made regular appearances at YaySportsNBA, ScalpEm.com, Pomp Culture, and Thunder Matt's Saloon. I met quite a few fellow sports bloggers, from the always verbose MC Bias to Cork Gaines of RaysIndex. I talked possibly freelance gigs and books with Jay Busbee and the possibility of interviewing the top of the NBA with Mike Tillery. I emailed back and forth with Will Leitch, Henry Abbott, Andrew Carter of the Orlando Sentinel, and countless others. I was part of the sports blog community.

Then 2009 happened.

If you haven't noticed, I have blogged less and less about sports this year. I don't know if my disinterest was because of the disintegration of the sports blog community or just a coincidence. I may be wrong, but it seemed that when Will Leitch left Deadspin and the new powers that be stopped reaching out to the little blogs, linking to their stories, and giving them a little shine, the air quickly left the sports blogging community. Gone were the links, the comments, and the love. Many sports bloggers around the country began scrambling to fill full time gigs at any half-brained website. Some made it to AOL, ESPN, Yahoo!, and the like, but most just faded into Mike Tyson's Bolivia. I was one of those.

But it wasn't only because the community was falling apart. I stopped writing about sports because I was getting bored. I am not a beat reporter, and I never have been. I am not an expert on economics, behavioral science, or race relations, and I am definitely not a statistician or medical expert. I had no angle to keep me in it. I was just a fan who got most of his sports from the very blogging community he was contributing to. I grew tired of looking for some niche, some angle, or some interesting perspective. Sometimes there was none. Other times I just didn't want to write, and that is the worst thing a writer can say. I didn't want to write.

Fortunately, right as my interest level fell to an all-time low, my company sent me on an overseas trip. That gave me time to think and play off the sudden drop in posts with the excuse that "I didn't have time" or "Sorry, I didn't have an internet connection". Both of which, if you follow me on Facebook or Twitter, are not true in the least.

So for the last few weeks I've pulled out an old standby, the Eulogy for the Eliminated series. What was a fun and creative series last year, thinking up witty eulogies for eliminated baseball teams, became a drag on a site that became a burden. Or a burden on a site that became a drag. Either way, I was going through the motions.

And that brings us to today. Three years, two months, 555 posts, and probably close to a million (maybe?) words later, and we have finally reached the end of the tip. But all is of course not lost. I'll still be writing, still blogging, and still creating, just over at my new site, JordiScrubbings.com. You can expect the same amount of irreverence, the same half-witted dry humor, the same attempts at satire, and the same random discussions on my varied tastes.

For my long term fans, however, I should warn you. I do intend on making two minor changes to my writing. My first goal is to make JordiScrubbings.com a bit more Tampa-centric. That means stories about my explorations and discoveries throughout the city I call home. My second change is I intend to write a bit more about me. I've always wanted to write about me more. To write about the people, places, and things in my life without reservation. Who knows, I might even slip in a post about my dating life, or lack there of. But don't bet on it.

Anyway, if you have enjoyed reading, perusing, or even belittling The Serious Tip over the last three years, I hope you follow me over to JordiScrubbings.com.

In closing, before I say good-bye to this not-so-serious-yet-appropriately-named website, I would like to say thank you. Thank you to all the bloggers and writers who gave me advice and encouragement. Thank you to all the commentors - you folks made my day with your snide comments, put-downs, and occasional words of encouragement. And thank you, most of all, to the you, the reader. Although I would have still written without you, you made it worth while. Knowing that I averaged roughly 150 of you a day and that over the course of three-plus years over 250,000 of you from all over the world visited the site makes me quite proud.

And now, without further adieu, I present to you JordiScrubbings.com: The Website. May you forever read and enjoy. And for The Serious Tip, may you, dear web site, Rest in Peace.

I'm out.



(Image created on request by Brian Spaeth of Brian23.com and the new web movie Who Shot Mamba?.)

Measuring the true worth of a pro wrestler

By now it should come to no surprise that I am a bit of a pro wrestling fan. I'm not sure how it happened, but it did. I go to shows, hang out with other wrestling fans, and even have gotten to know some of the performers and a little about the business. I am by no means saying I am the second coming of Vince McMahon (who I have a growing respect for by the way), I am just saying I think I might know a bit more than the average fan who occasionally watches Monday Night Raw.

With this new found (or newly acknowledged) fandom in mind, I've started to put my deeply analytical and often out-of-the-box mind at work thinking about pro wrestling. Sort of in the same way sabermetric folks think about baseball or a growing number of people are thinking about basketball. Since I've always been amazed by the way the "stathead" fanbase flips and bounces the numbers, I wondered if someone could take the same magnifying glass to pro wrestling. That is, to dig into pro wrestling and see if there are any patterns, trends, or coincidences worth noting.

Ah, I can hear it now, "Baseball is real. Wrestling is fake. You can't compare them or think about them the same way. That's not only ridiculous, it is a waste of time. Why am I reading this?"

Well, if you are still with me, thank you. Because I am about to do the impossible, at least I think it is, I am going to introduce statistical analysis to the untamed wilderness of professional wrestling.

Here is a little college entrance exam analogy for you:

Wins is to Baseball like _____ is to Pro Wrestling

I am going to go with "Money". The quest for money is the lifeblood of pro wrestling like the quest for wins is to other sports. Not that money isn't in some way related to baseball and basketball, but financial gain is only a positive byproduct of the team's daily results. In pro wrestling however, the results of the contest not matter. It is an athletic show, similar to Circus De Soleil. But Circus De Soleil is not promoted like a sport like pro wrestling is. Therefore, I am combining the results of Circus De Soleil with the analysis of sports - accurately maintaining the standard of "sports entertainment".

Ok, now that I have (somewhat) established that money is the goal of a pro wrestling event, then what is it about pro wrestling that brings in money? My answer to that is "entertainment". Any pro wrestling promotion can make money the first time, but to be successful an organization has to entertain. That is, it has to provide a level of excitement to the fan base over that of competing venues of similar costs. That's cost-benefit and simple economics 101.

So where does the burden of entertainment in pro wrestling lay? Who is primarily responsible for ensuring the fans reach a level of entertainment that will best lead to a return visit? The answer to this question, to the chagrin of self-promoting owners, is with the wrestlers. They are the meat and potatoes of pro wrestling. They are as important as touching first base is to scoring in baseball. Without touching first, you cannot score. And without wrestlers, you cannot have a pro wrestling show.

(Note: some promoters and other in-ring personalities do have some entertainment value. But the majority of the burden of entertaining is on the wrestlers.)

If entertainment equals money, how do you measure entertainment? The best way I can figure to measure entertainment is through response. Unlike watching chess, watching pro wrestling should be an activity unto itself. Fans should cheer or boo or clap or root for their favorite. Wrestlers use these reactions to judge whether they are "getting over", i.e. their act is being bought by the crowd. So therefore, the best way to measure if the fans are entertained is the same way we should judge if a wrestler is "over" - by the amount of noise a crowd creates. To date, no promoter, at least that I know of, measures crowd engagement or crowd noise.

Using a generic noise level scale, the average conversation is at 60 decibels (dB). A loud crowd is somewhere between 100 dB and 120 dB (the equivalent to a riding lawn mower). So the average crowd noise should be somewhere just below that, say 90 dB. Of course, there might be a slight difference in the dB level of booing, as most people can't quite boo at the volume they can cheer. With this standard in mind, any wrestler that can't reach 90 dB could be referred to as Jabroni level (JL). Anything above 90 dBs could be called Value Above Jabroni (VAJ).

(Below JL would be the cursed BBL, or bathroom break level. If a wrestler can't crack BBL then they probably need to go back to training because they are not connecting with the crowd.)

So how could a wrestler get a crowd from Jabroni Level to above-Jabroni level? In my opinion, the first thing a wrestler can do to attach him or herself to the fans is have a catchy name. Like police dogs, most wrestlers go with short names, with most being at least two to four syllables (see "Hulk Hogan", "William Regal", etc). Either that or they have a memorable nickname, such as "The Butcher" or "The Dragon". The bottom line is that the name needs a good Chantability Factor (CF). If fans can chant it, they can make it heard.

As the name infers, CF is the ability of a name to be chanted. "Rocky" for example, has a great CF. Two syllables, rhythmic, and begins with hard consonants. You could even add two syllables in the chant and go with a "Let's go, Rocky." See, no more than four. On the other hand, Engelbert Humperdinck has a CF of zero. You can't do anything with a name like that.

Admittedly CF is a bit vague, but my next group of stats is precisely measurable. Again, the key is decibel level.

In wrestling, the antagonist character is called a "heel". The heel attracts the boos, the jeers, and negative feelings. His negative actions are what draw heat, or response. Some heels are better at drawing heat than others. Promoters obviously want the heel able to draw the most heat in the prominent matches. If an average heel musters a 90 dB response (Heat rating, or HR), then a good heel should, on average, draw more heat. Simply put, he or she draws Heat Over Average Heel (HOAH).

If a heel doesn't draw have a high enough heat rating, he or she might be paired with a manager. The difference between the heel's average heat rating and his heat rating with the manager could be called simply Manager Assisted Heat (MAH). A good heel manager should be able to draw heat to any wrestler, no matter how high or low the wrestler's initial heat rating. Of course, if a heel has a high enough heat rating, he or she wouldn't need a manager to begin with.

During the match, performers try to keep the crowd involved, whether cheering or booing. A good match will have a high Crowd Momentum (CM), meaning the crowd is well into the match and vocalizing their enthusiasm. This is easily measurable by the duration of a certain dB level during the match. The main event should probably have the highest CM of the show.

Wrestlers don't want the CM to be too high, however, or else the fans will have reached their peak prior to the climax of the match. During most matches, the climax occurs during one of the wrestlers' "end move" or "finisher". A finisher should rank high on the Crowd Popping End Move Scale (CPEM Scale), measurable by the difference between the crowd's dB level prior to, during, and after the move. A headlock, for example, would likely have a low CPEM score, as it is doubtful the crowd response would be that different. A chokeslam, on the other hand, has more suspense and drama to it, hence a probable higher CPEM score.

I'll admit, I seriously doubt promoters will start measuring dB levels and other measurements of crowd enjoyment anytime soon. (Although here is a dB meter for only a few hundred bucks.) If pro wrestling is one thing, it's traditional.

Then again, who would have though baseball, the most traditionalist of all sports, would lead the way with statistical analysis? Maybe, once again, I am just ahead of my time.

ESPN listens to reason: No more "Sorority Row" ads during FSU games

I want to drop a quick post before today's game to congratulate FSU for taking a stand against something I was shocked to see a few weeks ago. I'm not sure how many people remember, but during the FSU-Miami game ESPN broadcast several ads for the new horror movie "Sorority Row", a film about a murderer who targets a college sorority.

As many older alumni can attest, a movie about killing sorority girls hits a little too close to home. For those who don't remember, please google "Ted Bundy Chi Omega".

Personally, when I first saw the ad, I immediately hit the twitter expressing my opposition:

"A movie about killing sorority girls during an FSU game. Programmers apparently never heard of Ted Bundy."

Apparently I wasn't the only person bothered by this. ESPN Ombudsman Don Ohlmeyer wrote that he received at least one email regarding the classless ad.

"When a sales opportunity presents itself, it's incumbent upon ESPN to consider particular circumstances that could give some viewers added concerns about potentially tasteless advertising. Such a case arose in the Sept. 7 Florida State-Miami telecast."

I guess at some point the FSU Athletic Department expressed concern and contacted ESPN on behalf of the entire FSU community. The result, according to FSU's Rob Parker on Seminoles.com, is that ESPN is pulling the ads.

"Three cheers for ESPN which responded to a letter from your Director of Athletics who asked the network to consider not airing advertisements for the horror film Sorority Row during Florida State games in particular and all college events in general.  The network understood FSU's sensitivity after the Chi Omega murders on this campus and agreed with the suggestion to pull the ads."

I know Hollywood is going to make horror movies exploiting our fears. It happens. That's why Psycho and Jaws, etc are so effective. But marketing them to the victims continuously during a sporting event was a little over the top. No matter how long ago something happened, people have to be sensitive to the scars of an atrocity.

Good to see ESPN doing the right thing.

Freakonomics is now questioning Steroids of the Mind

Quick post, as I am working on something more extensive:

I read an interesting post on the New York Times Freakonomics Blog today. In a post entitled "Are Ritalin-Taking Students Cheaters?", the Freakonomics folks link to an article on an Australian site that discusses the scientific work of an Australian researcher who claims concentration drugs could become a problem for academia.

Sound familiar?

Back in July 2007, I posted a letter I wrote to the Florida State University newspaper in 2005. That letter, entitled "Ban Steroids of the Mind", addressed this exact problem, of course in my own hyperbolic and over-exaggerated way of looking at it.

According to Vince Cakic, author of the study "Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology",

"Reports in the popular press suggest that smart drugs or "nootropics" such as methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam are increasingly being used by the healthy to augment cognitive ability. Although current nootropics offer only modest improvements in cognitive performance, it appears likely that more effective compounds will be developed in the future and that their off-label use will increase. One sphere in which the use of these drugs may be commonplace is by healthy students within academia. This article reviews the ethical and pragmatic implications of nootropic use in academia by drawing parallels with issues relevant to the drugs in sport debate. It is often argued that performance-enhancing drugs should be prohibited because they create an uneven playing field. However, this appears dubious given that "unfair" advantages are already ubiquitous and generally tolerated by society. There are concerns that widespread use will indirectly coerce non-users also to employ nootropics in order to remain competitive."

Compare that to what I wrote in 2005 and repeated in 2007:

"Similar to growth enhancement products, mental enhancers promote an unfair advantage and distort the academic "playing field". Whereas neither physical nor mental supplements provide magical results without at least a level of skill or subject understanding, the similarities between these products are quite eerie."

It's about time other smart people caught on to what I've been talking about. Once again, I am ahead of the power curve. Maybe one day I'll have a forum like Freakonomics.

Are Ritalin-Taking Students Cheaters? - Freakonomics, October 2, 2009

'Academic doping' set to rise: expert - abc.net.au, October 1, 2009

Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology - Cakic, Vince, Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;35:611-615; doi:10.1136/jme.2009.030882.

"Ban Steroids of the Mind" - The Serious Tip, July 2007

Sam Lay shot himself in the balls

For the last few weeks I have been reading a biography of blues man Howlin' Wolf entitled "Moanin' At Midnight: The Life and Times of Howlin' Wolf". Tonight I was ready to get a few chapters done when I came across this line:

"In 1966, while playing with James Cotton, Sam (Lay) accidentally blew off one of his testicles when a loaded pistol discharged in his pants pocket during some particularly vigorous drumming."

I had to stop reading and put the book down. Ouch.

Why Joe Mauer Should Not Be 2009 AL MVP

As another baseball season comes to a close, tis the season for the rumblings and grumblings of media folks and bloggers telling us which player should win what award.

Vote for Pujols for NL MVP! He is the second coming of (insert legendary player).

Vote for (Grienke, Sabathia, Verlander, etc, etc.) for AL Cy Young!

Vote for Coghlan for NL Rookie of the Year! He plays for the Marlins! Yes, they are still a team!

Perhaps the most discussed awards race so far is for the American League MVP. There is no dispute several players are having great years. Players such as Mark Teixiera, Kendry Morales, Carl Crawford, and Miguel Cabrera.

Despite the great years by these players, most columns have focused on one of two players, either the Yankees' Derek Jeter or the Twins' Joe Mauer.

Mauer has the support of numerous writers, bloggers, statisticians, and analysis web sites. He is leading in most offensive categories, from traditional stats like batting average, slugging percentage, and on-base percentage, to advanced SABRmetric measurements such as Value Over Replacement Player (VORP), OPS+, Win Shares, etc, etc, etc. He is also playing Gold Glove caliber defense at perhaps the toughest position in baseball: catcher.

Jeter has his own supporters in the baseball media, including writers, columnists, reporters, and other die-hard fans. Although Jeter's on-the-field numbers maybe not be as good as Mauer's, Jeter-backers advocate Jeter's intangibles, such as leadership, presence, and clutchiness. They even bring up the fact that he now holds the all-time record for hits by a Yankee.

From reading what has been written so far, you would think the battle is Mauer's stats versus Jeter's reputation and body of work. It is of course impossible to make this comparison. There is no way to match performance data with intangibles. None.

So far, the Mauer-backers have taken the lead in matching up the two candidates. They point out that Mauer beats Jeter in every category, bar none. It is their conclusion that because Mauer has better numbers, he should be MVP.

In response, the Jeter-backers call the Mauer-backers "nerds" and "stat geeks".

End of conversation, right?

As Lee Corso would say, not so fast, my friend.

Where the Jeter-backers fail is that they don't level the playing field. They sit back and get destroyed by conceding that Mauer is having a better season. They never attempt to hold Mauer up to the standards they hold Jeter to. This is their Achilles Heel. They don't bring up the fact that while Jeter has led the pristine life of a living Yankee legend seemingly since birth, Mauer didn't become the man he is until after he put on a Twins uniform.

The bottom line is that Joe Mauer can't be trusted.

Before his professional baseball debut, Joe Mauer did something so heinous, so outrageous, and so destructive, it should be forever held against him during the consideration of any and all awards.

Joe Mauer turned his back on Bobby Bowden and the Florida State Seminoles.

Following his senior year in high school, Joe Mauer was the most highly recruited quarterback in the nation. According to reports, he won three national football player of the year awards, and had the poise and potential to be among the greatest ever.

One writer claimed, "it is possible that in 50 years people will sit around and talk about those who were football’s finest; they will speak of Sayers and Payton and Unitas and Montana and Marino, but they may very well save a sentence for someone else, and that someone might be Joe Mauer."

At the time, Florida State was the premier football program in the nation. They had come off three straight national championship appearances and were chock full of future NFL players. And they had Joe Mauer.

Mauer's verbal agreement that he would be wearing garnet and gold after high school made Florida State the number one recruiting class of 2001. Mauer was to fit in behind Chris Rix and compete with Adrian McPherson for future field general of the Seminoles. With hindsight being what it is, there was probably little doubt Mauer would have even taken the job from Rix before Rix's graduation. With Mauer, the Florida State dynasty was set to continue.

Then Mauer "turned down (his) football scholarship from Florida State University to enter the Major League Baseball Draft". Despite a verbal commitment, Mauer was off to play baseball. According to Sam Mellinger of The Kansas City Star, Bobby Bowden remained so enamored by Mauer's potential he claimed he would "keep a scholarship open for Mauer 12 years after he was done with baseball".

Would Derek Jeter dare break a verbal agreement of that magnitude? Although Jeter received a scholarship to play baseball in Michigan, there is no evidence he let the Wolverine program hang out to dry. Jeter is a class act and a gentleman. Had someone with Jeter's character and the skills of Mauer committed to FSU, there is little doubt he would have been a Seminole. He would have followed his word.

It is for that reason that I can not possibly endorse Joe Mauer for AL MVP. Mauer may have the statistical advantage, he may be the greatest player in the American League, and he may even be seven feet tall and shoot fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. But after what he did to Florida State University, Joe Mauer does not have the moral composition to be a most valuable player.

(This post was of course written by an FSU alumnus.)

How to Talk To Girls on Twitter

E-migo Brian Spaeth is doing a virtual tour promoting his new movie and other ventures. You know what that means: Guest Post!

HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS ON TWITTER

I've known Jordi for several years now, and pretty much at every turn I screw him over in some way - one time I had him write on my old website for like 4 months (more like 18 months, ed.), and then I deleted all his posts later.

What's wrong with me.

Anyway, I know he's been getting active in social networking and social media and social internetting and being social online and also Twitter. As such - and because I am a self-perceived expert in these areas - I've decided to give Jordi something for his website blog.

Here is - as clearly as I can state them - the best ways to meet - and not meet - girls on Twitter. I didn't create all of these, but I've certainly perfected them.

1) Don't swear. Look at it this way - there are many girls who are offended by swearing, but very few who are offended by not swearing. Swearing was impressive when you were 12.

2) Be action-packed in your picture. There's a reason I have a picture that's action-packed looking. It's so girls think I'm always on an exciting adventure while I do my important Twitter typing.

3) Never, ever talk about how raw Green Lantern is in your profile. Stuff like this maybe only works for me.

4) Legalities aside, if you're over 24 or so, don't follow 18-year olds. For real - the 25-year olds find it off-setting, and like...just don't do it. 19-year olds are fine.

NOTE: In an odd bit of counter-point, I just looked, and 75% of the people I follow are 18-year old girls.

5) Along those same lines, is it "18-year olds" or "18 year-olds". Hyphen placement perplexes me, especially since my personal abandonment of the question mark. Oh - don't mess with grammar at all, or imply you lack education. Girls hate this.

6) Don't do sexual innuendo in public. Like any males who follow you are just gonna think it's weird, and any females who respond to it are just giggling at you with their friends. They're not giggling with you.

NOTE: SERIOUSLY, DON'T DO THIS. NO JOKES HERE.

7) Don't talk about how you hate dogs. This only works for me. In cases where this is done and it's not me, it's unsettling for females.

8) Don't be arrogant and self-absorbed. This is another that only I seem able to pull off.

9) You shouldn't Tweet about how you're going to the gym, unless you're doing it with fake bad grammar with an implication of an aversion to dogs, and also to meet 18-year old girls.

10) Be yourself. Also, if you search for "Grey's Anatomy", that's where all the good-looking girls are. Also "Gossip Girl", but that's only for 18-year olds, and you know you shouldn't be talking to them on Twitter anyway.

Which of these do you think are real and which are not. Also, do you think Jordi should delete this post one day -

Brian Spaeth is the writer and star of Who Shot Mamba?, a Broadband Motion Picture debuting October 13th on Koldcast.tv. You can see the first teaser-trailer on the website, and the second exclusively at the Facebook Page. Brian has also published two novels, and writes regularly at his own blog.

Happy 3rd Birthday to The Serious Tip

Today is The Serious Tip's 3rd birthday. Three years. In Internet years, that's a long time to be blogging. Here in the online world, where a week of popularity gets you a million hits and a cup of coffee, I've been around for an eon. I've seen 'em come and seen them go. I've seen people turn their blogging habit into a living and others who have walked away and moved to other pastures.

The Serious Tip started during the Great Sports Blog Emergence of 2006, when sports-related blogs were popping out of the wazoo. Back then I would definitely call myself a "sports blog". I wrote about the Mets, Knicks, and Noles nearly every post. As the days, months, and years went on, I wrote less about sports, although I have written a lot about the Rays. Even with the success of the local teams on my mind, I have drifted further and further from the sports label. Now, I wouldn't even call myself a sports blogger. I am more of a "whatever I feel like" blogger.

If I would have to venture a guess as to why The Serious Tip is drifting, I would say that I am getting bored. I still love writing. I love knowing that someone is reading what I write. I love telling stories. I love delving into views and aspects that most people don't think of. Most of all, I love creating. But unfortunately I am not sure if I am attaining those goals here currently at The Serious Tip.

Don't get me wrong, I am not planning on abandoning my group of very loyal readers. Some of you have been here since day one. For that I am definitely appreciative. Don't worry, whatever happens I fully want this site to be part of my personal expansion and development. I have put too much work in to walk away from The Serious Tip. But if you see a few changes around here, please be patient and embrace them. After three years, it is time for The Serious Tip and my writing career to grow up.

Thanks for three great years and here's to many more. Happy SeriousTipMas.

Adventures in computer buying and the art of patience

Like the able grasshopper of ancient Samurai-era Japan, getting myself back online took skill, determination, persistance, and plenty of patience. Fortunately, it didn't involve the use of any swords. Almost, but not quite.

My ancient computer went kaput ten days ago. A stupid virus took out my windows registry. It was a sad moment as my machine had been with me for six years, through thick and thin, grad school, over 500 blog posts, and one or two excusions into the deepest, darkest dungeons of cyberspace.

(Not that one of those excursions caused me to download the virus. Nope. No way. Not at all.)

Unfortunately, as there is no cash for clunkers program for computers, I had to scrounge up a few hundred thousand pennies for buying a new machine. Something I had not planned for following my sojourn to Memphis only a month ago. Not helping matters was the fact that some slimy scoundrel stole some money from me via a fraudulent transaction in Surprise, Arizona.

(Yes, I caught a computer virus and was a victim of bank fraud in the same week. How very 21st century of me.)

After laboriously counting the nickels, dimes, and a few quarters I did have and cancelling all my cards, I went to Best Buy to check out their wares and find a laptop. Although not intending to buy, I brought the Blackberry and reviewed every single laptop they had. At first I wasn't too impressed, both with the selection and the service. I'm not a big salesperson person, and I hate when I see several salesfolks lead customers to the same item. It makes it seem like they are pushing something they are trying to get rid of.

Frustrated, I left computer-less.

The next day I went back, once again ready to buy at Best Buy. This time I brought my checkbook, since of course my cards were no good. After once again going through the options, I settled on an HP. I strolled on up to the cashier, wrote the check, and lo and behold, my check was no good. Apparently, my check fit the profile of a fraudulent check. I think that's irony.

I left without a computer for the second day.

On day three, I was intent on buying a new computer, problems be damned. As Puffy sang, can't nothing hold me down. For the third time, I went to Best Buy around 1pm. Unfortunately, they were sold out of my machine. By this time, I didn't care if I had to drive to Miami to get this computer, no deity was going to stop me from buying the computer I wanted.

After asking where I can buy the computer of my dreams, I had to drive nearly 30 minutes to the next closest Best Buy. Supposedly, they had eight of my computer left. Of course, when I got there, they had only two. Two of my dream machines, with one little catch: they were both already tinkered with by the Geek Squad and would cost an additional 70 bucks. At this point, I didn't care.

I walked out with my computer, finally happy.

Then I discovered it didn't come with an AC adapter.

Ugh.