It's been a rough year and change for the Big Ten.
The crimes at Penn State, the scandals at Ohio State, expanding to add two weak schools in Maryland and Rutgers, all seven of your bowl teams are underdogs, your conference champion has five losses and that coach bolts for the 9th best job in the SEC, and now the wackiest story of all, the woman you named the female athlete of the year award after in your conference has been working as a $600 an hour escort.
What a year for the Big Ten.
Suzy Favor-Hamilton is also the most decorated NCAA track and field athlete ever.
If you haven't read this story, you need to read it now.
Favor-Hamilton is our beaver pelt trader of the week.
On to the mailbag.
Charles writes:
"Does Wheel of Fortune hate the South? The G was already on the board!"
This is highway robbery.
Plus, she's in the service!
And, as you rightly point out, the G was already on the board. She was clearly saying it.
How is this not getting more attention?
Al Sharpton needs to march.
Brad writes:
"As we all know, the B1G is complete garbage this year. That said, if Ohio St wasn’t on probation they’d be in the National Title game vs Notre Dame. Yes, an undefeated Big Ten team would be in (over a 1 loss Alabama), even though they would’ve finished 5th in the SEC. On a scale of 1-10, how much would this have pissed you off?"
This would have pissed me off a great deal.
Probably a ten on the sports pissing me off scale. (Which makes it like a five on the regular scale. Or roughly akin to how I feel every morning at 6:15 when my two year old wakes up).
But you're right, Ohio State would have played for the BCS title.
Why?
Because voters are, by and large, dumb, they vote for the glittery object over the better team. A glittery object is an undefeated season. If you finish undefeated in one of the big five conferences, you pretty much get a free pass to the title game even if you have no really good wins.
Ohio State would get crushed by Bama just like Notre Dame will.
But Ohio State would be in the title game if the Buckeyes were 13-0.
Can you imagine if Notre Dame and Ohio State were playing for the title? The South would secede.
Again.
That would make those Southern-hating bastards at Wheel of Fortune really happy.
Ryan L. writes:
"My wife and her family are Alabama fans. Last year during the offseason I started campaigning hard to win my 4 year old daughter’s fandom for the big orange. I wanted her to love Tennessee and orange so much that my wife wouldn’t be able to put another color on her. My angle….colors. Her favorite colors are pink and orange. Pink is her favorite, but orange is a close second. So I spent several months trying to teach her to cheer for the orange team because we like the color orange. We watched a lot of Tennessee basketball games and softball games. I thought I had her. She was randomly singing Rocky Top and everything. And then it happened. My wife, in one conniving swoop, convinced my daughter that crimson was in fact dark pink. And while I applaud her for being so tactful, did she go too far? I’m not an artist, but I’ve never looked at crimson as a dark pink. Maybe more of a dark red. I don’t know. I just can’t help to think that my daughter has been handicapped now. I can just picture her failing kindergarten because she can’t get her colors right."
This is exactly the kind of move I'd expect an Alabama fan to make. If you can just claim random national championships in years you finished fourth in the SEC, why can't you say that crimson and pink are the same color to try and ensure that your four year old daughter grows up a Tide fan?
What a deceitful, duplicitous move by your wife.
It's also genius.
You're screwed.
Unless, and I'm not saying I would definitely slip the kindergarten teacher a $100 bill on the first day -- note, yes, I am --, but if somehow the kindergarten teacher got a $100 to tell your daughter that crimson and pink were two completely different colors, wouldn't that be a doozy for your wife?
Suddenly your daugther would equate the color crimson with lying.
Which would be completely accurate.
When your daughter asks you about it, just say, "Well, honey, the color orange doesn't ever run. It doesn't change. It will be with you forever. If pink's not an option, orange is not so bad, is it?"
Bang, you win.
Brandon R. asks:
"What's the rule on holiday sex when you're staying at a friend or family's member's house?"
This is a great question that leads to more couple fights than you can possibly imagine.
Because if there's a room that has a lockable door every man thinks that room is fair game to have sex in.
I'm not kidding.
That's the male standard for where it's appropriate to have sex.
Does the door lock?
Every single man reading this right now is nodding, 100% of men are fine having sex if the door locks. (Lots of men are okay having sex in the front yard at noon, but we're looking for 100% agreement).
So assuming that there is a lockable door, the answer to the question now becomes: whatever your wife or girlfriend wants the rule to be.
I mean, that's it.
Now, no matter what, I think you have to be quiet. You can't slam the head board into the wall or scream, or anything like that. But if you're quiet and you have a lockable door, I think it's fine. That is, again, assuming your wife or girlfriend is okay with it.
Because, as you'll find out come December 24th when you roll over and say, "You still awake?" it's completely her call.
Mike S. writes:
"Who would be your Top Ten List of female athletes if they decided to become "escorts" like Suzy Favor Hamilton? What could their earning potential be?"
So basically you've asked me to tell you which female athletes I'd most like to pay to have sex.
In a mailbag that my wife regularly reads, three days before Christmas.
This answer is fraught with peril.
Neverthless, I think it's clear that Alex Morgan:
Leryn Franco:
And Anna Kournikova:
would all drive men right off the fiscal cliff if they were $600 an hour escorts.
I mean, I feel like there are men out there who would pay $5 million by itself to sleep with Anna Kournikova.
Having shown you three women who could break the escort bank, I'm now going to make a different argument.
Let's just presume that there is no black market, and analyze the sex-trade from an economic perspective, i.e. who is getting the best deal here?
Maybe I'm crazy, but six hundred dollars an hour for a hot, high-end escort seems insanely cheap to me.
A decent lawyer costs at least $300 an hour these days. So you can get four hours of legal work for the same cost as two hours of sex with a smoking hot escort?
Something is out of whack with these markets.
It's no surprise why rich men would make this purchase -- hell, a lot of these rich men would pay more than that for a bottle of wine at dinner -- but this seems like a bad financial decision for the woman.
Isn't exclusivity the smart financial play here? That is, if you're really hot and you want to get rich based on men paying you for sex, can't you just find a sugar daddy somewhere to marry you? Isn't that much more lucrative in the long run?
As is, let's break down the high-end escort's life.
Assume that you sell your services for $6k every weekend. That's around ten hours of work and that's probably more than you'd average making a weekend, but we'll give you that figure. Also, assume that week-night dates are rare because that's when your clients are living with their actual wives.
Assuming you work every weekend for an entire year, you're still just making $300k a year. (This would allow you to work during the week some and not have to work every weekend).
I mean, $300k a year isn't a bad salary, but keep in mind that you're risking your life, risking your health, and that every year you're worth less than you were the year before. Plus, the likelihood of you being able to live like this for more than a decade or so is really slim. So how much can you really make? Especially since living a lifestyle like this probably encourages drug use, addictions, and all sorts of unhealthy habits. It's not like you're just banking all of this money and going to retire somewhere.
Leave aside the moral angle, isn't this just a bad financial decision for a hot woman?
Now, I suppose you could argue that this is one way to meet really rich men and that you'd have a chance of getting married to one of these guys, but does that "Pretty Woman," fairy tale really ever work out? A dashing hundred milllionaire who has been paying for sex for years falls madly in love with his high-priced escort, isn't already married to someone else, marries her, and the two of you live happily ever after?
Basically, if your goal is for rich men to give you money for sex, I think you hold out for exclusivity if you're making the smart financial decision.
Or you charge a ton more money.
Travis T.
"Thoughts on "Homeland: Season 2" How would you go about writing Dana off the show?"
Spoiler alert!!!!
Spoiler.
Alert.
I saved this one for the end of the mailbag so if you get spoiled it's your fault now.
In general, I thought season two was a bit scatter-brained. You need like five smart, diehard fans to read the scripts, be sworn to secrecy, and then analyze it for you. Having great readers is really undervalued. Because when you're making a show like this you're incredibly frenzied. There are all these details to work out, and sometimes the storytelling loses in the process of trying to get the show completed.
Putting it into the context of your own life, finishing a story like this is a bit like leaving for grandma and grandpa's house when you have three kids under the age of five.
Inevitably, you make some mistakes. And sometimes you get the small details right and screw up on the big ones. (Like showing up without any diapers and not realizing it until the kid poops).
I could write five thousand words, but I had two major issues with season two:
1. Dana.
She was just atrocious.
I mean, beyond awful. And not beyond awful in that she's such a great actress that you hate her. (Think Janice, Tony's sister from the Sopranos, who is the maybe the best actress at being bad on television in recent history). Dana was just awful.
Whoever wrote the scene of Dana and Finn sitting by the pool should be executed by Nasir.
I have no idea how writing this bad got into an Emmy winning television show.
If Dana wasn't included in season two, everything would have been better.
2. Brody's phone not being tapped by the CIA.
This was inexcusable.
If I have to pause the television show and turn to my wife and say, "There's no way this could ever happen," you know you've failed big time.
I mean, I know very little about the CIA, but I know that they'd tap into the cell phone of the only asset they have to stop a terrorist attack from happening. I was willing to accept the absurdity of the text message being sent as they attempted to execute Nasir, but the final Nasir phone call that led to the vice president's assassination was just too much.
Even for me.
I mean, once you realize this then the entire season unravels. There's no way to kill the Vice President, there's no way for Carrie not to go to jail for being involved in the Vice President's death, the entire season just collapses.
Having said that, the finale was so superb that I'm willing to forgive the massive failure in season two.
There are so many interesting angles that season three can take.
As for Dana in season three, here's my fear -- and once you read this you'll be terrified too because you'll know this will happen -- she's going to run away from home to find her dad. And then we'll have a multi-story arc about Dana's search for Brody, her trials and tribulations, the random people she meets as a runaway.
This is going to happen.
And it's going to be awful.
Anonymous mom writes:
"Dear Clay,
My 16 year old son is nearly as snarky as you. So I wonder, at what age did your snarkiness begin? And how did your mother deal with you?
Please do not use my name, as he will become even more brooding if he hears this question on your show. (Which he listens to all the time, and he is also thrilled with your new NBC radio show.)"
I don't know the answer to that, but I was actually a really good kid. I gave my parents no issues at all.
I never really had any major issues in high school, but I've always been kind of subversive.
For instance, I remember when I was sixteen we had to write a play in English class, and my play just ridiculed like seven or eight teachers. I mean, just crushed them. But it was done in a subtle enough way that the English teacher didn't realize it at first. The only reason she knew was because of how the class reacted.
(Later, she pulled me aside and said, "This was really good. You can make a living as a writer." She was probably the first person to tell me that).
Anyway, I remember getting called into the guidance counselor's office. My guidance counselor was also our soccer coach and my best man's dad, so it wasn't exactly an intimidating environment for the conversation. And he sat me down and said, "Clay, you spend way too much time joking around and making fun of everything. You do realize that you can't grow up and make a living making fun of people, right?"
And I remember saying, "Yeah, you're right."
But he was wrong.
Good luck with your son.
He'll be fine.
...
Happy Holidays from OKTC to y'all.
