The Saudi Arabia of Blogs

I don't know when this phenomenon started - sometime after 9/11 and before the current scuttle over ethanol and food prices - but it's driven me to the point where I have a new purpose in life. In my job and elsewhere I am constantly witnessing politicians and scientists referring to some region of the country - or world - as the "Saudi Arabia" of whatever. It's usually been some sort of renewable energy - ethanol, wind, solar, etc. - but I've recently seen it expanded to cover other products as well. I started noticing it when Wisconsin's governor became very fond of referring to the Midwest as the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy, and it just ballooned from there. I understand the point they are trying to make - Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil, and exports a lot of oil. To try to move forward in energy independence, other regions who have the potential to develop forms of alternative energy should seize the opportunity to take the lead in whatever they have a comparative advantage in - for the Midwest or Brazil it's ethanol, for the Great Plains it's wind. That's certainly a noble goal, and while I don't disagree with it, this analogy is dead and needs to be confined to the ash bin of history.

Not only does it deserve to be banished simply because it has become one of the top cliches of the energy debate, but as my coworker Cindy astutely points out, it can be rather offensive. Why do we want to be compared to an oppressive regime that subjugates women and is rather adept at producing 9/11 hijackers? In no way do I mean to defame Arabic culture or Islam - it's the regime of Saudi Arabia - a corrupt, backward government created by the relics of colonialism - that I fail to understand why we are so keen to compare ourselves to. Let's move on and "change the debate," though that's treading close to another cliche unfortunately.

Every year, on New Year's Day, the good folks at Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, publish a list of words and phrases that should be banished from the English language due to overuse. Today I petitioned them and pleaded to add "X is the Saudi Arabia of X" to their list on January 1, 2009. If you still need some justification as to why this phrase should be tacked on to the list, below are the results of a quick Google search I conducted simply by picking all the words after "Saudi Arabia of" I could imagine. I'm not going to bother linking them all, but trust me, these came from sources ranging from blogs to very professional news organizations.

Arizona is the Saudi Arabia of solar energy.

North Dakota is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. (Hillary Clinton upped the ante and declared that the Great Plains from the Dakotas to west Texas is the Saudi Arabia of wind.)

Brazil is the Saudi Arabia of ethanol.

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

America is also the Saudi Arabia of food.

British Columbia is the Saudi Arabia of bioenergy.

Georgia is the Saudi Arabia of biomass.

The Southeast is the Saudi Arabia of cellulose (as in cellulosic ethanol).

Former New Mexico Governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson wants his state to be the Saudi Arabia of wind, solar and biomass. He'd better call up the Dakotas, Arizona and Georgia.

Oh wait, Alabama is also the Saudi Arabia of biomass.

Idaho is the Saudi Arabia of wood.

New Zealand is the - get this - Saudi Arabia of milk. They say this because it's the world's largest dairy exporter. I assume most of it goes across the straits to the Aussies. And gee, I would've thought NZ would be the Saudi Arabia of sheep, or maybe Lord of the Rings film directors. This appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

And the winner, for the most insane, and inane, Saudi Arabia analogy: "Hereford, Texas, is about to become the Saudi Arabia of manure." (Ok, I know you don't believe me, so here's a link.)

Lunchtime Filler Volume 3

Tsuro
Designer: Tom McMurchie
Players: 2 to 8
Playing Time: 10-15 minutes

The most recent edition to my lunchtime repertoire, I picked up Tsuro because it was an actual board game that anywhere from 2 to 8 people could easily play during lunch in our cafeteria. It's an abstract strategy game with a bit of luck and very simple but enjoyable gameplay. There's a board with a nice Asian-inspired dragon illustration underneath a 6 by 6 grid of squares, 35 tiles with various pathways drawn on them, and 8 chunky plastic player pieces. Each player starts the game with 3 tiles. On your turn you simply play a tile and move your piece along a path, then draw a new tile - on subsequent turns, you lay an adjacent tile and continue to move your piece along any new paths created until you run out of path. If, by placing a tile, you place a new section of path in front of another player's piece, that piece gets moved as well. If you get forced off the side of the board, you are eliminated. The object is simply to be the last piece remaining on the board. The paths can get very windy and unpredictable, and it's rather enjoyable to steer someone else off the board. So it does have player elimination, but games go by quickly so you never have to wait long for another chance. I don't know if my group has just gotten good at this game or if we're too timid to attack one another, but our games seem to follow a fairly similar pattern, so I would say the game does have potential to be repetitive. Or perhaps we just need to grow a pair.

Rage
Designer: Uncredited (how dare they!)
Players: 2 to 6 (I don't recommend 2)
Playing Time: Around 45 minutes

Another trick-taking card game that's pretty similar to Wizard, but with a few quirky differences. There are six colored suits with numbers 0 to 15, plus several different Rage cards - more on those in a minute. There's a trump color as per usual, and you start with 10 cards per round and work your way down to 1. Like in Wizard, you're trying to guess exactly how many tricks you're going to get in each round. But the scoring is different, and not as mean - you'll get 10 points if you're correct (only 5 if you said you'll take zero tricks) plus one point per trick. If you're off, you won't get the 10 point bonus, but you'll still get one point per trick, meaning that if you go over, you might as well try to take as many tricks as you can. You have to follow suit in all possible cases. If you can't follow suit, you have the opportunity to play a Rage card, and that's where people will really get pissed at you (hence the name of the game). You can change the trump color mid-trick, cancel trump altogether, give the winner of the current trick plus or minus 5 points, or trump the highest trump. As you can imagine, the Rage cards can generate mass chaos and make it rather difficult to get your prediction right. Because of this randomness, I prefer Wizard to Rage, but Rage is worth pulling out on occasion, especially if you're feeling the need to screw your neighbor and watch him throw his cards.

Incan Gold
Designers: Alan Moon and Bruno Faidutti
Players: 2 to 8 (get more than 2, really)
Playing Time: 20 minutes

Well that's quite a pedigree for designers - the creators of Ticket to Ride and Citadels (that's in the next lunchtime spotlight) team up for this simple but addictive press-your-luck game with an Indiana Jones theme. You play as adventurers exploring a temple with both treasures and hidden dangers inside. The game is played over five rounds - each round represents one trip into the temple, and each trip is marked by the unveiling of several rooms, which will either have treasure or traps. Before each room is unveiled, each player secretly chooses (via picking one of two cards) whether to stay in the temple or leave. The card then turned for the room may have a treasure number on it - from 1 to 17. All players in the temple split the treasure by taking little plastic gems, as evenly as possible, with the remainder placed on the card. Or the card may have one of several traps on it - fire, spiders, cave-in, weird mummy man, etc. The first time one of these comes up, nothing happens - it's a close call. But if another of the same trap turns up in a subsequent room, all players still in the temple flee in terror and leave all treasure behind. This ends the round. If, before this point, a player chooses to leave the temple, she gets to permanently keep all the treasure she has accumulated in that round up to that point, and also gets to take remainder treasures still on the cards (if more than one player leaves at once, they have to split those evenly as well). There are also artifact cards, which are worth either 5 or 10 treasures depending on when they're taken out of the temple. But - a player only gets to collect an artifact if he is only player to leave the temple on that turn. That definitely adds an interesting wrinkle of trying to guess when other players are going to leave, because you just have to snag that artifact. Whoever has the most treasures at the end of 5 rounds wins. The production values aren't the greatest - the gems are nice, but the cards are a bit shoddy and the stay or leave mechanic with choosing cards could've been done better. But I think I like this press-your-luck game more than most of my group. probably because I seem to be fairly good at it. I wish I could convince them to play it more often.

My Two Cents on GTAIV

It would seem remiss of me not to mention and briefly talk about the biggest entertainment launch ever in terms of sales figures - the release of Grand Theft Auto IV. I don't own it and I most likely never will. And while I support its right to exist, it annoys me, plain and simple.

The controversy surrounding the GTA games is largely undeserved. I haven't played it (maybe never will) but have read quite a bit about it, and am pretty sure there's nothing worse in there than what you'd find in an deservedly R-rated movie. It's not for kiddies, folks. But of course, the problem is that this is not a movie - it's a game, and makes it a target for two major reasons.

First, despite the incredible popularity of video games, among many in the older generation, video games are still viewed as a child's activity. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Those kids who were introduced to games by guiding Mario across the screen and stomping on Goombas have all grown up, and many people seem to have not noticed that 20 years have passed since then and Ronald Reagan is no longer president. Those mature gamers don't want to give up their hobby, and naturally are seeking more adult-themed experiences - not to mention that many of them are now game developers themselves. The average video game buyer is a male in his 30s. And, naturally, the younger crowd is being brought along for the ride. But video game critics seem unaware that - gasp! - adults play games too, and love to haul out the "Won't someone think of the children???" argument, instead of understanding that as adults, responsible gamers have the right to choose to play whatever they want. And, of course, it is the responsibility of those gamers and parents to keep GTAIV out of the hands of kids that should not be playing it. At Christmas a few years ago I witnessed a young second cousin playing GTA: San Andreas (the first time I had seen it in action) in front of his parents, grandparents, and other adults. All were disgusted by the game but did nothing to stop him from playing. Rockstar can't be blamed for that.

Second, it's all about the interactivity. You can't direct the way a movie or TV show goes. But with a game, you have at least some semblance of control. It's the very reason why today I play a lot more games than watch TV. Modern television, for the most part, bores and disgusts me. But playing a game places you as a participant in a virtual world, playing a part and affecting what is (in a good game) an intriguing story. But that's what causes the controversy in violent games - you can choose to be violent, to beat up that hooker and take your money back. (Of course, in many wonderful RPGs, such as the classic Planescape: Torment, you can also choose not to be violent - you get the best ending by talking your way around the final boss - but sadly those games don't get near the attention they deserve.) But GTA is a "sandbox" game, meaning you choose to do what you want, and the game never forces you, as part of a mandatory mission, to beat up a hooker. It's something the player can choose to do if he (or she?) wishes. I think it says more about the player who chooses to do that (although not too much), then teaches the player that it's glorious to beat prostitutes. So adult players should be able do what they want in GTA IV.

And that's probably why I personally don't like GTA games - their very sandbox nature. My roomie had GTAIII, and I played it for a while. I'll admit it was fun to explore Liberty City, listen to the radio stations, jack some cars, and snipe some old ladies. For a while. Then I started playing through the missions - the actual story - and eventually got rather bored with it. That was the last I ever played a GTA game. I like exploration in games, but I also like to be directed a bit in the form of good narrative. This gets to the very definition of video games and the ludology vs. narrative argument. Does a game have to tell a story, or does it just create a set of rules? How important is each of these to a successful game? What's fascinating about GTA - and to me, what's a bit frustrating about its success - is that it attempts to tell a strong narrative (and from what I've heard about GTAIV at least, succeeds) but probably a fair majority of the people that buy it won't care about the story in the least. Sure, they might play through a bit of it as necessary to open up new parts of Liberty City, but they're just in it for driving around and causing as much mayhem as possible - throwing all the sand out of the sandbox, so to speak. I think I find this frustrating because it seems to be a dumbing-down of a good narrative game and I fear what effects it may have on the future of games. I like to have goals when playing a game, have something to do to get a sense of accomplishment and move forward. But when the general goal is "cause mayhem" ... well, I might just enjoy it for a bit, but I will soon get bored and move on rather quickly. I have a gamer friend who once summed up our feelings on GTA rather nicely - he's completely anti-censorship, but he hates having to defend Rockstar because he doesn't think GTA games are games at all. But for the emerging "casual gamer," GTA is the ultimate casual game, where you can just wander around, do stuff, and not worry about the consequences or advancing further in the game.

Which urges me to, as my last point, draw a comparison to the, let's say, penultimate casual game - The Sims. It's another sandbox game, and although nowhere near as controversial as GTA, it can be almost as violent - you can, for instance, trap a Sim inside a room with no doors and watch him starve to death - and is not without its sense of sexuality (gay Sims, anyone?). But I didn't like the Sims either. I played it once, made a house, filled it up stuff, and was done with it. Why in the world would I want to manage a character who has to eat, do the dishes, use the bathroom, etc. when have to do all those things in RL? Honestly, I play games for escape and adventure, to do things I otherwise can't. But millions and millions got sucked into the world of the Sims, and I'd really like to see a comparative study of GTA and Sim fans. How much crossover is there? What is common about these games that appeals to many but not to me? GTA is obviously a lot more about escapism than the Sims - and, while I have no desire to play it, I think would be much more likely to win my attention - but the main attraction in each seems to be exploring and interacting with a world, largely free of the burden of progress and mandatory achievements. Given that real life is full of that, I suppose I can try to understand that, even if it's usually not for me, unless I'm in serious need of some brain candy. So enjoy your GTA - but I'll pass.

Board Game Review: Vegas Showdown

Designer: Henry Stern
Publisher: Avalon Hill
Players: 3-5
Playing Time: 60 to 90 minutes

Quick Premise: You're an average multibillionaire with nothing better to do, so you get together with your multibillionaire buddies to see who can build the fanciest, most profitable hotel/casino in Las Vegas. Bid on various additions to your complex, such as slot rooms, lounges, restuarants, and theaters, and arrange them to create the ideal, most aesthetically pleasing layout that's guaranteed to bring in the masses and keep 'em trapped there, spending money. Respond to the ever-changing casino building scene effectively to bring in the peeps, dollars and fame. Whoever has the most fame (VPs) at the end of the game gets to tell Donald Trump he's fired...or just wins.

Components: Lots and lots of cardboard, but nice cardboard. Different tiles to represent all the different rooms you can add to your casino, which come in 3 sizes and 3 colors (yellow = casino, blue= restaurant, green = lounge). Gameplay takes place on the main central board, where you stack all the tiles, and on each player's mat, which has space to organize purchased tiles and a score track for your revenue and population. You get a few wooden bits to mark each player's bid, fame, revenue and population. The only cards are a small deck of event cards. Cheap poker chips are also provided to count your money on hand - true Vegas aficionados would probably prefer to use their clay chips they may or may not have used since the poker craze went the way of New Swing.

Gameplay: For a game about Vegas, there's actually no real gambling involved. Instead, there's a lot of auctions, and you throw in a bit of strategic tile-laying, akin to Tetris, for a little variety. The rules to this game can seem a bit confusing at first, but once you get into the flow of the game, it becomes rather simple and moves along nicely - it's no more complex than Settlers of Catan, really. Maybe less so.

First, an event card is turned over for the round, which may be something like "you can't bid on casinos this round due to a strike" or "each player can pay X dollars right now to publicize and earn X fame." There's also a shape on the card that determines what stack to draw from to pick a luxury tile and make it available for bidding that turn. Players collect revenue based on their current population and revenue numbers - whichever of these is lowest equals their income for that turn.

Then, each player has three options. First, players can opt to bid on a tile they would like to purchase in that round. These are either basic tiles (slots, lounges, restaurants) or luxury tiles, which have certain prerequisites (you need a Restaurant before you can build a Fancy Restaurant, and a Fancy Restaurant before you can build a Five-Star Steakhouse). However, you can still bid on and buy a luxury tile even if you can't build it yet. Players can outbid each other so long as they can afford to do so, and bidding continues until no one has been outbid and everyone pays for and collects their tile. They can then place it in their casino, and depending on the tile, it will usually have some positive effect on the player's revenue, population, and/or fame. Or they can hold onto it and place it on a later turn through the renovation or publicity process.

Tile placement is crucial to a high final score. One third of a player's map is yellow, the opposite third is blue, and the middle third is white. Yellow tiles can only go in the yellow and white thirds, blue tiles can only go in the blue and white thirds, and green tiles can go anywhere. The goal is to place tiles so as to completely fill up the blue and yellow thirds - you get an endgame bonus for that - and to connect up the entrances to each room to make a complete path from the casino entrance in the yellow third to the hotel entrance in the blue third - another bonus. On top of that, most luxury tiles have red triangles on their corners and sides. If you can place these tiles together to make complete, or even three-quarter, diamonds, then you earn more bonus points.

The other two options on your turn aren't as exciting as bidding but they can be crucial to your success, and a player can choose to default to one of them during an auction if the bidding isn't going well. A player can renovate, by which he can remove and place up to 2 tiles, or he can publicize, which earns him one VP and he can also place (but not remove or rearrange) one tile.

That's basically the entire game. Players slowly build up their income and use it to buy the big stuff that increases fame, and link up their casino buildings. The game ends either when one player completely fills up her casino map (I think this rarely happens) or when an event card calls for a certain size of luxury tile to be turned over, and that stack is empty. Tally up all those VPs and tile-placement bonuses to see who's the winner.

Player Interaction: It's fun to bid up tiles you know other players want, but since there are several tiles up for bidding at any given time, usually you can find something at a fairly decent price - or decide to publicize instead. Beyond the auction wars, there's not too much interaction, but given that this is primiarly an auction game, what would you expect?

Theme: Pretty good, but probably could've been better. It's pretty abstract, and I think the Vegas-ness could've been brought out more. The illustrations on the tiles are nice - I think - but they're all various shades of the same color so nothing really stands out. At least you get poker chips for money, which is better than paper at any time.

Reaction: I really liked Vegas Showdown, even though I didn't win either of the two games I've played so far. They were both fairly close though, and I just needed one more right tile to turn up to win the second game, but it ended before that happened. I thought the combination of auctions and strategic tile placement made for a fairly unique experience (but I'm still fairly new at being a gamer so I may be ignorant on this).

Bottom Line: A homegrown American game with some solid Euro mechanics. With the auctioning of Power Grid (ok, maybe not quite, but something like that), the tile arrangement of Tetris (ditto), and the glitz and glamor of the Strip, what's not to like?

Lunchtime Filler Volume 2

Wizard
Designer: Ken Fisher
Players: 3-6

I also brought this back from Germany, and the German deck features awesome fantasy art with humans, dwarves, giants and elves. From what I hear, the American deck is rather blah. But Wizard a fun trick-taking game where the main objective is to guess exactly how many tricks you are going to take in a round - no more, no less. There are 60 cards in the deck, with 4 colored suits having numbers with 1 through 13 (so in that it's just like a standard deck). There are also 4 Wizard cards (which in our parlance go by "Z", as in Zauberer, the German word for Wizard). These cards are higher than any trump card. Lastly, there are 4 Fools (or "N", for Narr), which are lower than every other card - these come in super handy when you want to avoid taking a trick. Before each round, a trump color is drawn and each player says how many tricks they think they will take based on their hand. Then play commences and it goes like any other trick-taking game, with follow-suit requirements, except that Wizards and Fools may be played at any time. At the each of the round, if you got just as many tricks as you predicted, you get 20 points plus 10 points for each trick taken. If you are wrong - either higher or lower- you get minus 10 points per trick that you were off (so if you said 2 and got 4, it's -20 for you). In the first round you just have 1 card, and you add one card per round; a full game will, in the last round, use all the cards in the deck, depending on the number of players (so a 4-player game would end in the round when you have 15 cards). It can be devilishly difficult to match your prediction, especially once the cards in hand gets above a dozen. And there's plenty of opportunity to mess with others - do you set your bids so they match the possible number of tricks, and work together as happy family? Or do you whip out your Z and top the trump 13? It's your choice - and that makes Wizard a fun, fast-paced card game that requires adaptability and just a tad bit of foresight.

No Thanks!
Designer: Thorsten Gimmler
Players: 3-5

Take a card or pay a chip. That's about all there is to this simple card game that mixes press-your-luck with a little bit of strategy, while leaving an opening for screw-your-neighbor if you so desire. There's a deck of cards numbered 3 through 35, and before each game 9 of these are randomly removed. The rest are shuffled and placed in the middle of the table. Each player receives 11 chips. The first player turns over the first card and decides to either take it or pay a chip. If she takes it, that card will be added to her score at the end, and this is again a game where the lowest score wins. But - if you can build runs of consecutive cards, then only the lowest card in the run will count toward your score. And so the game quickly becomes a struggle for deciding what runs you think you can build - knowing 9 cards are out of the deck - and when to take a card that you need or try to push it around the table for one more round of those precious, precious chips (here's where someone could screw you and take it anyway). A round of No Thanks lasts all of 5 or so minutes, and there are always demands for another chance for players to see how long they can go.

Guillotine
Designer: Paul Peterson
Players: 2-5

Ah yes, the card game where you win by getting "a head." It's the French Revolution, and you're an executioner trying to add as many nobles to your head trophy collection as possible. But be careful not to decapitate the Hero of the People! An odd theme, but it works. The game is played over 3 rounds, or days. On each day 12 nobles are lined up for the chopping block. On their turn, each player will generally add the noble at the head of the line to their score. Different nobles are worth different points - good King Louis and Marie Antoinette are obviously worth a lot more than the Piss Boy. There are also some gray nobles that are minus points, and others that have various effects that may or may not be positive. But before a player collects a noble, they may play an action card, which can have variety of effects - the most useful ones are generally the cards that rearrange the noble order, but you can also mess with other players' hands, earn points for collecting nobles of a certain color, and give yourself some protections. As you might imagine, there's a lot of messing with others in these wacky game, so it's not for the faint of heart, but it's generally an enjoyable romp with a great theme (and even comes with a cardboard guillotine to mark who's next in line to meet his or her maker).

Movie Review: Before the Fall

Ever since Germany began to come to grips with its Nazi past, back in the '80s or so, there has been a steady increase of movies coming out of the country telling various stories of the Third Reich. They often present a fresh, different perspective in contrast to what's been produced by Hollywood since the days of John Wayne et al. Some of them, such as Sophie Scholl: The Last Days and Downfall, are truly great works of modern German cinema. Yesterday I had the pleasure of viewing another such movie, Before the Fall.

It's 1942, and Friedrich Weimer is a bright high school student and burgeoning boxer. After catching the attention of the right Nazi bigwigs and being found to be "Aryan enough," Friedrich is accepted into a Napola - the Fuhrer's elite schools designed to train the future (male) leaders of the Thousand Year Reich. Seeing the road to easy street laid down before his eyes, Friedrich defies his father, a strong Nazi opponent, and leaves his family for the school. I thought the father/son thing was going to be a major part of this movie, and it was - but not this father and son. After the opening minutes we never see Friedrich's father again, and I would've liked to have seen that plot line developed. But, alas, the story goes elsewhere.

Friedrich is welcomed by his classmates (except for the token Bossy Senior With Chip on His Shoulder), and dives in headfirst to the Napola experience. It's tough, to be sure, but overall goes well at first. Friedrich befriends Albrecht, the son of the local governor who's a budding author lacking a proper Teutonic warrior's spirit, and impresses Albrecht's father with his boxing prowess. It is chiefly via his relationships with Albrecht and the governor that Friedrich begins to realize that perhaps the Napola education is not the best course for him and his fellow young Germans. I don't want to give away any of the ensuing events, but the tension and drama they evoke help to tell a great story that I think works well as both a period piece and more timeless story of friendship and sacrifice in the face of evil. The production values are top-notch (great castle setting, and I have to admit those uniforms are pretty snazzy) and I especially liked some of the cinematography during the boxing matches (if you want to feel like you're getting punched in the face, this is the movie for you). If you can bring yourself to endure a little less than 2 hours of German subtitles, Before the Fall comes highly recommended.

This ... is ... Jeopardy!

A few years ago I tried out to be a contestant on Jeopardy!, on the regular show. Needless to say, I didn't make it. My friends insisted it was because I did too good on the test. While I'll never know for sure, it still would have been cool to take my Scholars' Bowl knowledge and experience to the national stage. Hopefull someday. But in the meantime, the Jeopardy! College Championship just happened to be filmed in Madison this year, and I snagged some tickets to the taping of the final 2 shows.

By the time we arrived at the Kohl Center, normally UW-Madison's basketball and hockey arena, on the dreary Saturday afternoon, there were already a couple thousand people waiting in line to get in for the final session. Fortunately we still got pretty good seats, on the lower deck off to the side of the set. Before the show Johnny Gilbert, the announcer, came out to warm up the audience. Quite a few people had brought signs, displaying messages of varying degrees of cleverness, and most in the middle section had been given pom-poms to wave when the camera was on them. The UW band, a few cheerleaders, and Bucky Badger were also on hand to add to the atmosphere.

As per usual, the final game of the tournament would be played out over two episodes. The three finalists were from Marquette, Mississippi State, and Harvey Mudd (which Wikipedia just told me is a "highly selective, private college of science, mathematics and engineering located in Claremont, California"). The Big 10 had been well represented in the tournament with contestants from UW, Minnesota, Michigan, and Michigan State, and there had of course been the usual Northeast representation from Harvard, Yale, and Tufts. Too bad they all bombed out - ha ha.

When the lights came up, Alex Trebek walked out on stage and the show started, I have to admit it was pretty cool to see Science Hall and the Capitol on the big Jeopardy! board. Just like any other show, they jumped right into it, with Andrew from Harvey Mudd taking control in the first game. The clues would come up on big monitors to the side of the stage so we could read them, but we were naturally warned about shouting out the answers, and the audience did a good job of remaining quiet during the rounds. It was interesting to watch all the camera work and such; there was definitely a lot going on.

During commercial breaks, Alex walked out among the audience and answered questions. From his answers I gathered that he seemed like I always thought he would be - intelligent, fairly witty, a bit cocky, but probably a nice guy. The whole crew was definitely from LA - they repeatedly sucked up to us as the "best audience ever" and made a crack about never having had to walk to work in the snow before (we got a bit of the white stuff over the past couple days). We wondered how many of them had actually set foot outside of their hotel and the Kohl Center, and if Alex had actually gone to Ian's Pizza as he claimed or if someone had brought him a slice of the mac n'cheese, saying "eat this so you can say you had something local." Oh well, the Sconnies seemed by and large impressed, so I guess it worked.

Back to the tournament. Andrew had a commanding lead going into the first episode's final clue, but he missed it, and the girl from Marquette (can't remember her name, but she had a slight home-state crowd advantage) finished in a solid first. In the first round of the second episode, though, there was a Bible category, and that was when - not to make any assumptions - Joey, the guy from Mississippi - took charge. He ran that category and completely dominated the game. Going into the second Final Jeopardy!, Joey and Marquette Girl had good shots at winning, with Andrew a bit behind.

I thought the last clue was rather easy, but Andrew missed it, taking him out. Marquette Girl and Joey both nailed it and wagered big, with Joey coming out on top. But here's the funny bit - Andrew, in his excitement, miscalculated and thought Marquette Girl had won, and proceeded to give her a big hug. This confused the directors and camera operators, with Alex saying Joey had won, and eventually they decided they had to film it over again. So they cued up the tape to where Joey was about to reveal his answer and started over - with the contestants having to act like they didn't already know the outcome. Andrew got his hug right this time (and later even started crying) and they finished without a hitch. It was interesting and made me wonder how often something like that happens, and the TV audience never knows a thing. The crew took it in stride, so I'm guessing it's not a rare occurrence. All part of the business.

All in all it was a fun (not to mention free) way to spend the evening, and maybe I'll even appear on a wide-angle shot of the audience. The episodes I witnessed will air May 15 and 16. So keep an eye out for me - and know that one day I'll be on the other side of the cameras.

Rock Chalk Jayhawk!

April 7, 2003

After stomping Marquette in the national semifinal, the University of Kansas Jayhawks, led by seniors Kirk Hinrich and Nick Collison, play for KU's first men's basketball championship since 1988, against a Syracuse team starring freshman sensation Carmelo Anthony. The Jayhawks fall behind early, due largely to woeful free-throw shooting by Collison. They mount a late comeback, which gives Michael Lee a chance to send the game into overtime with an at-the-buzzer three pointer. The shot is blocked, and KU comes within 3 points of bringing the championship back to Lawrence. During his postgame interview, KU coach Roy Williams, who is in the midst of swirling rumors that he's about to leave the program to coach at his alma mater, the University of North Carolina, announces on live CBS television that "I don't give a shit about North Carolina." It's perhaps the strongest phrase Ol' dadgum Roy has ever uttered.

A few days later, Roy announces that he's leaving for UNC. It was the final moment in the most bizarre week in KU sports history, epitomized in the firing of Athletic Director Al Bohl, who held a surreal press conference in his driveway and announced that Roy Williams chose to crush him like a dove. The fans of Jayhawk Nation, in less than a week, go from expecting to win the national championship (I'll freely admit we were a bit cocky after we waxed Marquette) to facing the bitterness of a close defeat and the loss of their deified coach.

After an intense search, Bill Self, who previously had brought success to Oral Roberts, Tulsa, and Illinois Universities, is hired as the Jayhawks' next head coach. Soon thereafter Lew Perkins from Connecticut is brought in as AD, to revitalize an athletic department in disarray. Fans look to the future with just a touch of optimism.

The 2004 Jayhawks fare well in the NCAA tournament, losing to Georgia Tech in the Elite Eight. The next two years, however, are unmitigated disasters, as KU commits the unprecedented (for KU) act of losing in the first round of the tournament in two consecutive years to significantly lower seeds. There are calls for Bill Self's head. Lew sticks by his coach and keeps pumping money into the department. The 2007 Hawks again advance to the final 8, before losing to eventual 2nd place UCLA. It's better than '05 and '06, but Self gets saddled with the label of "Best Coach to Never Make the Final Four."

How much longer would the Jayhawk faithful have to wait before they added another championship to the program's storied history? The inventor of basketball, James Naismith, was KU's first coach (and only one with a losing record). Phog Allen - perhaps the grandfather of modern college coaching - coached for over 30 years and brought championships to Lawrence in 1922, 1923, and 1952 (the first two came before the NCAA tournament existed and so by some people's measures "don't count.") Wilt Chamberlain graced Lawrence with his basketball greatness and led the squad in the 1957 triple-overtime loss to North Carolina for the championship, widely considered one of the greatest college basketball games of all time. Danny Manning and the Miracles captured the title in 1988 over Big 8 rival Oklahoma in Kansas City. In the years following there had been many great moments, to be sure, but the ultimate glory seemed always just out of reach.

April 5, 2008

After barely surviving a heroic effort by tournament Cinderella Davidson, Kansas has arrived at its first Final Four under Bill Self. Its opponent in the semifinal is none other than North Carolina, still coached by Ol'Roy. After a week of relentless hype about the matchup of Williams vs. the "other" school he loves and its still-jilted fans, there's nothing left to say. Finally it's time to get this inevitable clash over with, and start a new chapter in KU history. The Jayhawks explode in the first half to an amazing 40-12 lead, which no one, even KU fans, had deemed possible. Tyler Hansborough, supposedly college bball's best player, gets schooled by a freshman from Minnesota. Not knowing what to do with a 28-point lead and getting tired, the Jayhawks let UNC back in, to the point where KU's lead is down to four, 54-50, in the second half. Certain KU fans wonder if it's this team's destiny to lose spectacularly in the tournament, year after year. But in Act III of this epic, the Hawks wake up and put the game away. KU wins 84-66, and the Saga of Roy is officially over.

April 7, 2008

It's five years to the day of the loss to Syracuse, and the Kansas Jayhawks are once again playing for the national championship, this time against the University of Memphis Tigers, a team which had lost only one game the entire season (KU had lost 3). Memphis is led by a duo of outstanding guards sure to be highly paid NBA stars in the near future. While KU has its share of likely NBA prospects on its roster, not one of them received significant individual honors at the national level. Instead, it's perhaps one of the most balanced teams Kansas has ever fielded. On any given night any of seven or eight players could step up and seize the win with a memorable performance. To challenge the mighty Tigers, not just one, but all of the Jayhawks would have to be on top of their game.

The first half was played back-and-forth at a furious pace, with KU edging to a 33-28 halftime lead. From the Final Four's temporary residence at the Alamodome in San Antonion, to Phog Allen Fieldhouse and bars lining Massachusetts Street in Lawrence, to gatherings across the country, Jayhawk fans were cautiously optimistic. Then, in the second half, things slowly fell apart. While neither team played particularly well, KU couldn't hit a 3-pointer to save its life, and as the missed shots lined up, Memphis began to pull away. Down by 9 with 2:15 to go, fans began to resign themselves to the ugly reality - it wasn't going to happen. Not this year either. Not this most deserving of teams, laden with seniors who had overcome unbelievable personal tragedies to ascend to college basketball's biggest stage. Then, sophomore guard Sherron Collins stole the ball and canned a 3 with about 1:45 to go. Was there a glimmer of hope? The shot put Memphis in a position of having to defend coach John Calipari's claim that excellent free throw shooting wasn't essential to win huge games. Hoping for a miracle, KU began to foul Memphis...and Memphis began to miss its free throws. KU seized on the opportunity presented to it - complete with Self yelling the admittedly corny "You've got to believe!" at his players - and were down by 2, 62-60, when Memphis again went to the free-throw line with 10.8 seconds left. The first charity was missed and the second was made - putting the Jayhawks in the exact same situation as they had found themselves against Syracuse. Collins ran the ball up the floor and dished a pass out to Mario Chalmers, who, with 3.6 on the clock, released what would go down as the biggest shot in Kansas basketball history. The 3-point shot hit nothing but net, and the game was sent to overtime. In the stands Roy Williams, wearing a KU sticker, willed on his former team (and North Carolina fans were justifiably pissed). In the future, every KU fan will claim that they knew at this moment that this game was over.

True enough, it was almost all KU in the extra 5. The Jayhawks opened up with a 6 point lead and Memphis never got closer than 3. In Allen Fieldhouse, half full of spectators watching the game on the video board, fans began to (rather orderly) storm the court when it became apparent that the game was fully in control. For a fan base that prides itself on restraint because they expect their team to win every game (or at least be able to), this might be the only time it's considered appropriate to storm James Naismith Court. When Collins' final free throws went down and Memphis' last shot went awry, pandemonium erupted across Lawrence. Twenty years later, with Danny Manning now as an assistant coach, the Kansas Jayhawks have brought the national basketball championship back to the Sunflower State. Combined with the football team's Orange Bowl victory (a story greatly deserving of its own post), 2008 has become the greatest year in the history of KU athletics. The demons of Syracuse, of Roy, of Bucknell and Bradley, have all been exorcised.

The following day, the team arrived back in Lawrence in the afternoon and was greeted by at least 30,000 fans in the football stadium. Like in 1988, KU had canceled classes for the day, so what else did any student have to do? The rain could certainly dampen no one's spirits. Mario Chalmers, who will never have to buy himself a drink ever again, received a hero's welcome, and as the championship game's MVP, will one day have his jersey retired to the rafters of Allen Fieldhouse, to join those of Chamberlain, Manning, Collison, Hinrich, and so many others. With seldom-seen tears in his eyes, Coach Self, who had thought the celebration would be small enough to hold in the Fieldhouse, declared: “I think I speak for our team that this is totally overwhelming. You are the most loyal, best fans. I can’t imagine there’s any place that’s better to coach or play at than right here.”

2003 was my senior year at KU. It was my last chance to witness a KU basketball championship while in Lawrence. While I missed out on that opportunity, that doesn't take away from the utter awesomeness (in the true sense of the word) of this championship. I was too young in 1988 to know what was going on with Danny and the Miracles. And while I certainly hope that future bright times lie ahead, it's impossible to tell when the Jayhawks may once again climb this summit. So I'm just going to savor this for a long time. From all I read and learned about this team, and how they banded together and overcame so much adversity both on and off the court, they represent the best of what it means to be a Jayhawk. Congrats to them, the coaches, and everyone else in Jayhawk Nation. It's truly a great day on the slopes of Mount Oread.

Far above the golden valley, glorious to view,
Stands our noble alma mater, towering toward the blue.
Lift the chorus ever onward, crimson and the blue,
Hail to thee, our alma mater, hail to old KU!

Lunchtime Filler Volume 1

It's been a year since I organized a bit of a lunchtime gaming group at work. Today there's about 6 regulars in it, and we're still going strong. It's pretty easily the highlight of my workday. I've gradually built up our collection of games that work well for us, and today I'll start an occasional series detailing our favorites. These won't full in-depth reviews, but many of the games are simple and don't really require them anyway. I've left out the playing time because, well, we play them for an hour. For more information, you can always consult the Geek.

1. 6 Nimmt, or Category 5, or Slide 5, or whatever
Designer: Wolfgang Kramer
Players: 2 - 10

I found this in Austria last November and brought it home, not having any idea that it was available here under a couple of different names. But, as usual, I prefer the artwork of the German version. A very fun, simple press-your-luck sort of game that has the advantage of scaling well for a diverse number of players (though I don't like to go lower than 4). Although there isn't too much strategy involved, what is there changes depending on the number of players. There's a deck of 104 cards numbered 1 to 104, with each card being worth a certain number of points (1, 2, 3, 5, or 7). Points are bad, mmmkay? Everyone is dealt 10 cards, and 4 cards are laid out face-up on the table to start 4 rows. Everyone picks a card to play and reveals it simultaneously. The cards are placed in the rows according to a couple rules - it has to be higher than the card that precedes it, and it has to be placed after the card closest to it. So if I play the 65 and the cards ending the 4 rows are 14, 50, 61, and 84, it would get placed after the 61.

Play continues like this until a point when someone places a card that would be the sixth card in the appropriate row. That player has to take the five cards in that row and place her card as the first card in the new row. At the end of the round you score all the points that were on the cards you had to take. One other options - if you play a card that's lower than all of the end cards, you have to take a row, but you get to pick which one. So there's a little strategy - do you take the low point row or the row that will totally shaft someone over, even if it means a couple more points for you? Generally several rounds are played until someone breaks a certain score, say 100, and at that point the lowest score wins. Great game for anyone to pick up and play, not too mean, and anyone can win.

2. For Sale
Designer: Stefan Dora
Players: 3-6

A two-phase auction game with a somewhat pasted-on real estate theme - but the property illustrations are cool (from a cardboard box to a space station), so it gets a pass. In the first phase, there is a deck of 30 properties, each with a value from 1 to 30. As many cards as there are players are laid out face-up, and players bid for the top card. If you pass, you have to take the lowest card currently on the table, and if you have a bid in at that point, you have to pay half, rounded down. The winner gets the high card and pays all of his bid. As you can guess, the "winner" of an auction is often the player who paid half for the second highest card (like paying $3,000 for a 25 instead of $7,000 for a 27). Repeat until all 30 cards are distributed.

In the second phase there are 30 check cards, with 2 each valued from $2,000 to $15,000, and 2 Void checks worth nothing. As many checks as players as laid face up on the table. Each player then picks one of their acquired property cards to play. Whoever plays the highest property card gets the highest value check, and on down the line. Continue until all check cards are out. The winner is the player with the highest total of check cards; any leftover money from the bidding is added to your score at face value. Fast, easy, and the 2 phases give this game some nice variety.

3. Forbidden
Designer: Philip Orbanes
Players: 2-4

A interesting twist on rummy, which I believe incorporates elements of mahjong, though never having played real mahjong, I can't comment on how effective it is at that. The deck has three suits - red, green, and black, and numbered cards from 2 to 9, although in a nice touch, the 6s and 9s are the same card, Yin-Yang cards, can be used as either, and score a 5-point bonus when used. There are also 9 Forbidden cards, a few wild cards, and a few other special cards.

Like in rummy, you're trying to build sets and runs of cards, though they all have to be in the same color. Normally you don't lay anything down until the round is over. The exception is if you choose to take a card from an opponent's discard pile - at that point you must use it and play its associated cards. A player can block you from taking a discard by playing a Forbidden card on the pile. However, Forbidden cards are also potential score multipliers, so the main conflict in the game comes between using your Forbiddens on other and keeping them to yourself.

In order to go out ("cheng"), a player must have either 0 or 2 or more Forbidden cards - not one flying solo. If she fulfills that requirement and can play all of her cards in sets/runs, then she goes out. 3 card sets/runs are worth 5, 4 card sets/runs are worth 10. The cheng player's total score is multiplied by the number of Forbidden cards she has. Everyone else can count what they have collected in their hands, but any Forbidden cards are worth -5 points. As for the other special cards - the Emperor protects you from negative Forbidden cards; the Empress attracts the Emperor if he is in play and causes the Royal Marriage, which doubles your score; the Rooster gives a 10 point bonus to the cheng player or a 15 point bonus to a non-cheng player; and then there's the Monkey, probably the coolest card. Before each round 2 cards are placed in a treasure envelope. If you have the Monkey at the end of the round, you get to take those cards and use them to add to your hand if you can. If no one has the Monkey, 2 more cards are added to the envelope before the next round, so it's a cumulative jackpot.

The game usually comes down to someone getting a big hand with 3 or so Forbiddens. Sometimes that can seem a little unfair, but I think it usually works out alright. An alternative to rummy with some interesting cards and intense "That's Forbidden!" action.

March Madness

Haven't had too much time for posting lately, but just wanted to throw something on here quickly. Once my Italian class is over next week hopefully I'll have a little more time for blogging. Had a busy weekend, full of friends visiting and basketball watching. Ah, March Madness - the one sporting event per year that I really get involved in. And the more I think about it, the more of a game connection I can make - besides the obvious fact that basketball is a game, there's of course America's favorite metagame - filling out and betting on brackets. It's amazing how many people that never gamble or know next to nothing about basketball joyously participate in their (usually illegal) office bracket pool. It's like how everyone (except me, sometimes I feel) has to watch the Super Bowl. Just another little slice of Americana I suppose. Or perhaps it says a little something about human nature - either the sociology of joining, or the innate desire to make everything into a game or competition, even if you know you have no chance of winning. Ah, but with the NCAA tourney there's always that chance of the glorious upset to even things out, and it's so easy to fill out a bracket, even if you're picking random teams - I think something about those combined factors just makes everyone want to join in. If a game designer could somehow capture those essences and brew them into a game, it might just be the next great gateway game. Maybe it's already been done and I'm not thinking in a straight enough line for that game to come to me. Thoughts?

Anyway, go Jayhawks! Bring on North Carolina!