Okay, slackers, it's mailbag time.
It's become a routine for me to praise you, but you guys continue to inundate me with great mailbag questions on Twitter and via email. I read everything y'all send me, but if I replied to all of you I'd never do anything else. So, as always, thank you for reading and for sending in such excellent questions.
Our beaver pelt trader(s) of the week is the police department in Massachusetts. They took their time in the Aaron Hernandez investigation and completely and totally nailed him for this murder.
Well done.
Now, on to the mailbag.
Jessica writes:
"I know it's a little early to be fretting about football season, but I am a huge Vols fan, and two of my closest friends planned their wedding on September 21, day of UT-Florida.) I'm also a bridesmaid, and recently found out that the bridal party is to get ready all day in the church where they are getting married WITH NO TVs. How bad of a friend/bridesmaid would I be if I skipped out on the bridal festivities to catch some of the first half (alas, it probably won't be much of a game after that)?
I feel like this would be a no brainer if I was one of the groomsmen.
Heck, they'll probably be throwing down brews and watching it.
This doesn't need to be posted. However, I would like an answer from a reasonable and objective person before I hurt her feelings/offend anyone by asking leave (or completely skipping and blaming it on my hair)."
First, as a general rule -- fall weddings should be impermissible in the South unless you're pregnant or a significant family member is close to death and otherwise may not survive to a spring wedding.
Having said that, I've been a groomsman in 11 weddings in the past nine years. So I feel like I know the wedding experience pretty well at this point.
And in every one of these weddings the bridesmaids have required approximately ten hours to prepare for the wedding.
Every single one.
So here's my question for women -- how is this possible?
Because the groomsmen inevitably get roped in for a much longer wait than we need. It takes the average groomsman about eight minutes to get ready for a wedding. If you want to add the shower and the shave every single man I know can be ready for a wedding in a half-hour, tops. And if we needed to be ready in fifteen minutes, we could do it, easy.
As a result the groomsmen show up and sit around a wooden table in some back corner library of the church for like three hours, at least, while the bridesmaids are inevitably late for the photos.
So where's the time disconnect here? How is this possible? Especially since you've already known exactly what you were wearing for months.
What is it that bridesmaids are doing that takes so damn long? And when do you reach the point of diminishing marginal returns on working on your physical appearance? For instance, if you each only had an hour to get ready and you had to do your own hair and put on your own makeup, how much worse would you look than after the ten hour bridesmaid carwash?
I don't think any worse at all.
In fact, you could even look better since you probably wouldn't cake so much make-up on your face or use as much hairspray.
Basically, what are y'all doing with the other nine hours of prep time? Especially if it ends up making you look like the Joker.
Now, circling back around, every church should have an HD television with a full cable package -- okay, excluding Cinemax -- for wedding parties to watch.
This seems pretty simple, right, a television with cable in the wedding waiting rooms. You're in there for hours. Shouldn't this be a necessity?
Finally, my advice, skip out for the first half of the game and blame food poisoning. (Although UT-Florida could be a night game, in which case you might be able to watch it after the wedding at the reception).
Jon V. writes:
"After a workout, I typically spend 10-15 minutes in the steam room. The other day, I was in there with two other guys who were sitting on the same, relatively short bench. Naturally, I parked in the middle and just two minutes later the guy to my left exits. This leaves me awkwardly closer to the guy on the right and open space to my left. The question of etiquette and manhood I have for you is whether I should slide to the left and distance myself from a naked man not named Kliff Kingsbury (sending the signal I'm uncomfortable sitting this close to a sweaty naked guy and potentially offending the guy by moving away from him). Or, should I remain in the same spot, knowing that the next guy that walks in will see two naked dudes sitting unnecessarily close to each other (suggesting to both the current guy and the new guy that I'm enjoying sitting next to the sweaty naked guy, which is of course is never enjoyable...unless it's Kliff Kingsbury)?"
You have to move.
Male seating works via the same principle as male usage of a urinal, you don't stand next to another man in the urinal if there are open urinal spaces. (By the way, do you remember your dad or grandfather ever teaching you this rule or is it innate? I don't recall ever being told not to stand next to another man at the urinal, but I've never seen anyone do it. Did cavemen innately know not to stand to close to another man while he was peeing? Plus, this rule works across countries, religions, everywhere in the world. Is it fair to say that not standing next to another man at the urinal when there are open urinal spaces is the single most uniting male experience in the world? I think so.)
Back to your sauna experience.
You could make a joke as you move to avoid offending the guy next to you, but I don't even think that's necessary since he's probably hoping you'll move too. As the man in the middle you hold all the cards here. The other guy can't change the situation by moving, you can.
The move is the appropriate play here.
No doubt.
Greg F. writes:
"Since we're 6 months into the college football off-season it's officially gotten to the point where I have spent the past few weeks pondering everything that is beauty pageant strategy. Two questions, one dealing with pageant format and one with strategy:
I like your ideas here, but I would scrap the talent portion of the competition before I'd scrap the bikini. Why do we really need to see Miss Georgia play "God Bless the U.S.A," on a harmonica? Does this really make her better qualified to represent us across the nation?
I do love the idea, however, of everyone being forced to wear the same crappy clothes and forbidding all makeup usage.
I also think you've got to stick with the bikini because women have become so adept at disguising their body types that you really have no idea what they look like without their clothes on anymore. I mean, take the bra for example. The bra didn't change for like a hundred years and in the past ten years it's like the Manhattan Project has been applied to boobs. You can turn an a-cup into a d-cup now with the right bra. How good have bra physics become -- you can't even trust cleavage anymore.
Boobs can just vanish as soon as the bra comes off.
The same is true with long legs and heels -- girls literally look like they're stepping off a ladder now when they take their heels off. Then you've got the fake eyelashes, the spanx, I mean it's virtually impossible to see what anyone looks like in their clothes now.
Every women goes out like she's a CIA agent under disguise.
So we still need the bikinis because it's harder to fake your look in a bikini.
As for the idea of purposely tanking on a question to become more famous. There's no doubt this it the best way to claim actual notoriety these days. Now, you have to be smart enough to cash in on your fame, but that's the route to true publicity.
Nick writes:
Since then, Meyer won another title, quit, changed his mind, quit again for a year of Bristol "family time" and took the Ohio State job. There were always rumors about the locker room culture. Favoritism, leniency, dysfunction etc. and the Hernandez disaster is kind of the icing on the cake. My question is it okay for me to loathe Meyer as a person but be happy about the titles he brought? Second, is there another example of a coach who won somewhere, didn't get caught cheating before he left but still came out looking like a scum bag and leaving his fans conflicted?"
I believe Urban Meyer is an incredibly fake person. What's more, I think he's so delusional that he doesn't even realize how fake he is.
All major coaches on some level are egomaniacs -- I mean, this isn't exactly the profession for a guy with low self-esteem -- but Meyer's just so fake about everything in his life. Particularly, his family. If Urban Meyer pulled a Nick Saban and was like, "You know what, I'm kind of an asshole. All I care about is winning football games," I'd respect him more.
Instead he tries to pretend to be a family man when we all know he's fake as hell about his family controlling any of his decisions.
Hell, this is a guy who couldn't make time for his kid's little league games.
Ever.
And he also dragged them all over the country chasing better jobs.
He went from Bowling Green to Utah to Florida and back to Ohio State in 11 years.
I know coaches move around a ton, but four head jobs in 11 years is wild even for a successful coach. If you really cared about your kids don't you think you might want to stay in one place for a few years for them? I mean, I talk to guys all the time in a variety of jobs who choose not to take a better job because they don't want to upset their family's happiness and move halfway across the country.
Urban is all about Urban.
And he pretends to be the exact opposite.
Having said that, I don't think hating Meyer individually means you can't be happy about the titles. It isn't your job to select a pope, it's to cheer for your team to win games.
All fans make immoral bargains. "I love (insert player here), but I don't really think he can read. Go Vols!" Or "Man, we totally paid Cam Newton but...War Eagle!"
My main issue with fans is when they adamantly refuse to recognize the duality here, that we all live in gray when it comes to college athletics. That's fine, but at least acknowledge the immorality.
The dumber of a fan you are, the more likely you are to see sports like you see everything in life -- in clearly defined bright lines. There's good and bad, right and wrong, and nothing in between. This is why the average Bama and Kentucky fan is so stupid -- because he's completely unable to acknowledge that anything at all might be bad with his program.
And anyone who points out anything bad is a "hater" or a gay Muslim.
As for your question above, I'd say Bobby Knight is probably a pretty good example. Yeah, he won and he won big, but how many Indiana fans did he leave feeling pretty dirty in the end?
Andy writes:
"Game of Thrones is a great show that we now have to wait 9 months to watch again. With that said, every Sunday night when sitting down to watch GoT, I have to say I'm a little disappointed when I don't see the "N" for nudity in the content warning for the show. Same goes for True Blood. Is this wrong? Shouldn't I just be happy to watch a great show and have my mind blown every other episode. I know I'm not the only one."
I watch GoT with my wife.
Every time the rating screen flashes on the screen and we see an N for nudity, I pump my fist like Jeff Fisher on the sidelines after a fourth down conversion.
Every time there's no nudity, I shake my head and softly mutter, "Damn."
And every single week my wife rolls her eyes.
I feel like this scene probably repeats itself in millions of households.
So, no, you are not alone.
Derek D. writes:
"A few days ago Johnny said that folks should walk in his shoes for a day. I think the average guy would jump at this chance, so here is my question. Let's say you not only get to take Johnny up on his offer, but you win the lottery and get Halloween as your day. Naturally, you are surrounded by tons of stunning, drunk coeds wearing virtually nothing, so your chances of taking one or more of them home is probably pretty good. However, being an average guy, lets say your doctor has told you to refrain from having sex because your heart can't take it and you stand a good chance of dying. Do you risk your life to spend what would likely be the best day of your life in Johnny's shoes?"
I've had versions of this question asked to me before. And I'm sure lots of you have debated it at bars. Usually the question is, assuming you live to be eighty or more, how much of your post-80 life would you trade to be (insert ridiculously successful, famous, thrilling person) for a day or a week?
Just about everyone says they'd give up at least a month of life after the age of 80 for a day in the life of that celebrity.
So the answer is, yes, you take the opportunity, even if you might die during the timeframe.
If you've reached the age where you could potentially die having sex, how much fun is the rest of your life anyway? This means you could die playing golf, climbing too many sets of stairs, during a critical fourth down play featuring your favorite team. Basically, your life is just one long worry about death.
So, roll the dice.
Bigger issue: What would happen in your hypothesis if you died during sex with multiple women -- because you probably wouldn't settle for one woman if you were Johnny Football on Halloween in College Station? Would Johnny suddenly return to his body mid-sex while you flashed back into your own body to die? Or could you kill Johnny Football and leave Manziel trapped in your crappy life and body?
Can you imagine how pissed Manziel would be to suddenly find himself a 54 year old rental car manager in Topeka, Kansas?
Matt T. writes:
"So, my friend is a big Civil War buff and we were talking... Southerners have said 'The South Will Rise Again' for years, but never said exactly how... Has the prophecy been fulfilled with the rise and domination of SEC football (assuming southerners are capable of prophesying)? Has the South finally risen again? I mean, it's pretty much the Civil War all over again... The south vs. the rest of the country."
My five year old has gotten really interested in war. So he asked whether Nashville had ever had any battles in it. My wife told him about the Civil War's Battle of Nashville. Inevitably this led to a chain of about forty different questions -- it's amazing what kids can ask -- and she told him that I loved reading and talking about the Civil War so he could ask me about the war.
So he got home and immediately climbed in the chair beside me and started to pepper me with questions about the Civil War.
Who was fighting?
I told him the North was fighting the South and this conversation ensued.
Him: "Who won?"
Me: "The North.
Him: Mouth drops, eyes open wide. "What?! We lost? Are you sure?""
Me: "Yes."
Him: "Why did we lose?"
Me: "Well, the North had more people and weapons and then Stonewall Jackson got shot and Ewell didn't take Cemetery Hill and..."
Him: "Daddy, are you sure we lost? Nashville lost?"
It went on like this for a while.
I wish we had it on video. A Southern boy realizes the South lost.
Wait until he finds out about slavery.
Based on your question I'm just going to tell him we lost until 2006, when the SEC's national championship run began and the South rose again.
The end.
Hugh F. writes:
"Settle a debate. Here is the scenario. Take Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, Rory McIlroy, and Fred Couples (because, why not?) and put them on your standard public golf course. Here's the catch… they all tee off from the ladies tees on every hole. What would they shoot? We have done the math and are pretty sure they could reach every par 4 green in one… and every par 5 green in two. Their short games would be challenged on the par threes from the tee box. Do they break 60? 55? 50? or is golf so "difficult" that the game stops the scores from going down at some point? Do you take into account the "not PGA" fairway/green conditions?"
I called in the big guns for this question.
Specifically, Nashville's own Brandt Snedeker, who listens to 3HL when he's in Nashville and reads the mailbag every now and then.
His answer will be forthcoming and it will be much better than mine.
In the meantime, let's break this down.
What would the best golfers in the world shoot on a public course playing from the tips? 62-64 is my guess.
Now, what would they shoot if you moved them up to the ladies tees on that same course?
I don't think there's any doubt they'd break 50.
I mean, just do the math. They'd have to average a bit more than a birdie to break 52 or 54 (depending on whether the course is 70 or 72), right?
They're eagling every par 5. So that's eight under par right there in just four holes.
They'd definitely birdie -- at worst -- all the par fours and most of those they could drive the green and potentially eagle as well. At worst that's -10.
So you're sitting at -18 right there.
Honestly, the par threes are by far the toughest four holes because they could hit mediocre shots and have to par the holes.
There's no way they ever bogie on this course.
So I'm going sub 50.
David B. writes:
"My wife believes any man who is not gay or an immediate family member is a potential rapist and/or pervert.
There is a 100% chance that straight male masseuses get infinitely more enjoyment out of giving a massage to a hot woman than an ugly woman. (The same may be true of gay men too since the "hot" woman's body is probably in better shape the ugly woman's body and hence more physically appealing. Even if you're gay it can't be fun to massage a fat, sweaty back roll.)
No matter the profession, all straight men get more joy out of serving hot women than they do not women.
I'm serious, whether you're a shoes salesman or a boob doctor, it's impossible to extricate your maleness from the job. It doesn't mean you can't do a good job, but you certainly would prefer to be doing that job for an attractive woman.
Having said all of this, I hope you enjoy your Mexican Tatum-Tebow baby in nine months.
It's never a good thing if you're a white guy and your first thought when your wife gives birth is, "Are babies supposed to be this tan?"
Jeremy C. writes:
"What's the likelihood in your opinion that Aaron Hernandez's jersey number and IQ are the same?
Who would be the most capable serial killer in the NFL?"
Aaron Hernandez's jersey number is 81. I'm going to say his IQ is around 90. So they're close, but Hernandez barely beats it out.
You want to see the creepiest survey ever done?
Turns out that serial killers are of average intelligence.
Unless you kill by bomb, then you're a genius.
Seriously.
As for the most capable NFL serial killer, I'm going Peyton Manning. If the guy can orchestrate an entire offense with 11 moving parts on both sides of the line of scrimmage, he could definitely kill a single person.
I'd tend to believe that kickers and punters would probably be the best serial killers by position because they're all a little bit creepy and isolated.
And with that fabulous question, hope y'all have spectacular weekends.
