Shasta's Awake: The University of Houston

UH Cougar game at Robertson Stadium. (University of Houston Athletics). FAIR USE: I'm only using this photo because it is relevant to the subject that I'm posting about, NOT to obtain profit.

Two and a half years into my collegiate career (counting the years I did dual credit in high school), I started at the University of Houston to major in architecture -- also known as, "that other big school in Texas", "Cougar Fucking High", "the college for students that couldn't afford Texas or Texas A&M", "the largest commuter school in Texas", and other derogatory nicknames that have been uttered ever since the school was founded in 1927. The school at the time was in the middle of transition -- Dr. Renu Khator became Chancellor and thus chief executive of the University of Houston that January with the stated of goal of elevating the University of Houston to tier-one status and developing a national relevant athletic department. Needless to say, it was a campaign that most non-Cougar supporters cared for or even blew off; I don't even have to mention what the vast majority of the alumni did.

For years, and even to some degree now, the University of Houston has not had much of a reputation here locally. Many are going to watch a Longhorns game or an Aggies game before they would watch a Cougar game. Many won't shut up about the glory of attending Texas or Texas A&M, yet, they'll only utter two condescending sentences about the University of Houston. But up to the last few years heading into Khator-era University of Houston, that's the reputation that the school garnered because of decades long  complacency: the University of Houston will provide you a degree because you need one, athletics whenever you are bored, and the opportunity to live at home because you can't afford to live on campus in Austin and College Station, much less anywhere else.

By the time Dr. Khator marks four years being head of the University of Houston, she has managed to be the catalyst for an improvement in the academic system that has put the University of Houston into Carnegie's top 50 national school rankings, finally bringing the school tier-one recognition. I would imagine that US News & World Report's elevation in rankings for the University of Houston will follow in 2012. Athletic director Mack Rhoades, along with Cougars head football coach Kevin Sumlin and head basketball coach James Dickey, have returned Cougar athletics to national conversation for the first time since Bill Yeoman and Guy V. Lewis, respectively. In fact, the University of Houston has even scored at Big East Conference invite. New school buildings are being constructed. It's now fashionable to live on campus. School spirit is contagious. Believe it or not, people are proud that they attend the University of Houston.

Indeed, the University of Houston has a long way to go. Its endowment, across the entire system, only barely squeaks past half a billion, compared to over $14 billion for the University of Texas and $5 billion for Texas A&M University. However, that is expected -- Texas and Texas A&M have a widespread appeal that comes with being founded in 1883 and 1871, respectively, and it undeniably hard and nearly impossible for a school like the University of Houston that's not even a hundred years old to reach. But, at the same time, it is not the University of Houston's intention to be an alternative to Texas and Texas A&M; the school intends to be a school of its own, with its own appeal. The school wants you to attend the University of Houston because it is the University of Houston -- a primary choice instead of a remedial choice.

Dr. Khator's generation of students, and I mean this for the students that were here in 2008 whenever she took over, are going to be the ones that pay the school the most dividends later on. We will be the alumni that will be donating to the school. We will be the ones that will be the boosters for the athletic departments. We will be the ones that will say, with pride, that we attended the University of Houston.

It's nothing short of amazing to see the transformation of this school in such short time. If you are a former University of Houston student and you haven't been on the campus in years, take some time, any time, and just walk through the campus. I promise that you will be in awe. While like I said, the school has a long road ahead to lead it from the abyss of being "just that other big school in Texas", the University of Houston is off to a hell of a start. Count me as one of its biggest supporters and I will be a big supporter, even after I graduate from here.

Dr. Hall, Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Not Cry About The Lockout

This post is my attempt to give a shit about the NBA Lockout. Let's see how successful I am.

Bill Simmons is right. Unless you are a die-hard NBA fan, you probably don't care too much about having two weeks of the season already cancelled.

My friend is right as well. Nobody really gives a shit about the NBA until the time period between the Super Bowl and Spring Training, and even then the NBA will play second fiddle to March Madness.

It's a shame. The 2010-2011 NBA season was one of the finest in recent memory in terms of quality of play. My Houston Rockets did not make the postseason, but it was still a fairly enjoyable season for myself -- a mere casual basketball fan. The NBA Playoffs were the most compelling in recent memory. The NBA Finals told one of the greatest sports stories ever -- in fact, probably one of the best stories ever in the history of pop culture period.

So here you have it: two sides at odds over money, a little over $4 billion. Most fans don't really care -- we don't have much of an opportunity to have empathy for those that have seven to eight figures to the left of the decimal point in salary while the vast swath of us have our yearly income stop at five digits. The owners are crying foul that players are taking up too much profits and of course the players are fighting for their money. It's just two sides wanting their fair share of $4 billion.

Michael Wilbon says that the NBA is inviting public ridicule. He's a basketball journalist and I respect his opinion. He's right to a certain extent. The ridicule won't be widespread. It will be widespread in the media and a total inverse outside of it. Because few people care.

The reality is that the NBA does not mean as much as it used to, despite its popularity these days. It's not nearly as popular as it was during the Magic-Bird or Jordan years. Players such as Kobe Bryant, Derrick Rose, LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Dwight Howard, and others are all well regarded, talented players, yet history will show that they're not going to resonate with fans to the degree that Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, David Robinson, and Hakeem Olajuwon do. I can even throw Shaquille O'Neal and Gary Payton into that camaraderie. NBA players these days are hard to get behind and are even harder to have an enduring adoration for because of the current culture of the league.

When I say current culture, I'm not talking about how the NBA has now become the hip hop culture's sporting arena, or in some pejorative views, a "thug league" -- I'm talking about the NBA's culture of being a talent-diluted sports league with mediocre television coverage. I'm talking about how for a decade one conference was vastly superior to the other. I'm talking about a league that has way too many players playing professional basketball too early. Never mind the D-League -- its not really useful as a developmental league in the degree that NBA teams hope for it to be.

A note about this past season. It was a marvelous season. Yet, as a 23 year old, I can remember back during the 1997-98 season when I was 9 and 10 years old, that the quality of play was better. And for those that just do not understand what I mean by that, find time to watch any game from the 1990s. The players were far more seasoned and fundamentally sound then because the culture of the league back then did not put value on players that left college basketball, the true farm system of basketball, too early. The NBA play of today, while decent, can be at times egregiously sloppy. It's not me trying to be classicist. There will be times that the quality of a NCAA game these days will be as good or even better than a NBA game, while a decade ago it would have been inconceivable to say that.

This is not an NBA that anybody is in love with. It just simply isn't. The NBA is a casual fan's league; the casual fan who would not lose sleep at night if they did not have the NBA to watch this winter. The NFL, as we've seen, was a different story. Same thing with Major League Baseball, albeit to a lesser degree. There's a love affair amongst fans with the NFL, Major League Baseball, and for the tight-knit fan minority, the NHL. It really does not exist with the NBA.

However, this may be a positive for the NBA, at least when the league starts up play again, whenever that will be. The casual fan will easily go back to the NBA. You may think that's preposterous, but look at it this way: the casual fan has a limited or even absent emotional attachment to the league; they won't give two shits about a work stoppage and when play begins again, they'll make time to watch it out of generic, casual interest. The reason being is that they're a fan of the game of basketball itself more so than they are a fan of any individual league or any given franchise. It will work in the NBA's favor.

In the meantime, casual fans, like myself, will observe the NBA being absent, but we're not going to cry rivers about it.

Okay, so attempting to care about the NBA lockout was somewhat successful.

Life Is A Business

Wall Street (Getty Images). FAIR USE: This image is not used for profit. This image is used for metaphorical purposes only in relation to the subject of this post. Plus, it was modified from its original, color form.

Some Spring night during my 8th grade year, I had a conversation that I cannot really remember that had to do with some girl that I liked and I somehow fucked it up. In an attempt to make myself feel better, I declared that life was a business and love was an investment, a la the stock market. A friend of mine was in agreement with me, and for the most part, I carried that philosophy throughout high school even though I drifted away from it as I got older.

Occasionally I went back to it here and there whenever the situation was deemed fit, but by the time I turned 21, I for the most part abandoned it. For the next two years my personal life was a disaster. It was manageable until my professional life followed suit. I was doing anything I could to preserve things that probably shouldn't have been preserved; and when I lost the worthless things that were not worth preserving, I found myself doing anything and everything to make myself feel better.

You can't run a business as a series of patches and fixes for short term stability, put off finding a long term solution later, and run a successful business. Your business will be a disaster, you will be in despair, and you'll be quick to raise the white flag on the prospects of prosperity. It works the same way with life.

Life is a business, but of a different kind. Success is defined by you, whatever it may be that meets your criteria of success. It could be that big house, or that Porsche, or it could be as simple as being able to provide for yourself and family in comfort. The ups and downs of your life cycle -- your personal business cycle -- depends on what emotional or mental state that you're in. They're wide variables. Plug in whatever you want.

There's boom and busts, growth and depressions -- those fucking depressions that get us. There's always being an optimist, being a pessimist, or being a realist. There's being a realistic pessimist until you have a reason to be optimistic. It's similar to various schools of economic thought -- there's something for everyone, from the mixed-economist Keynesians, to the free market Chicago and Austrian schools, to the communal socialists. Fill in your own fucking blanks.

This isn't me being nihilistic, no; this is a corollary to what I mentioned before in the post about the value of living. This life that you life is whatever you make of it. This life is your business, your own fucking business. And just like any business that exists, it's up to those at the genesis of the business to lay the foundation of success. It's up to those that run the business to interpret what happens into positives and negatives and advantages and disadvantages. No, I'm not trying to go Ayn Rand on you. All I'm saying is don't box yourself in, for your life is your business.

The Value of Living

Monterrey Bay, California (Getty Images) FAIR USE: This image is not used for profit. This image is being used as a metaphorical device in relation to the subject of this post. This image has been heavily modified from its original form.

I remember during a sales meeting I was at about two years ago when I still sold cars, my general manager as a motivational tool discussed the concept of legacy. While he went on about how the success of oneself in the car business can tie to their own legacy, I rather write a blog post that is a whole hell of a lot more broad than that.

There's two view points in legacy -- the reflective point of view and then the observed point of view. The reflective point of view is self explanatory -- it's how you view your legacy and how you hope that others view your legacy. I would imagine that most of you want to have a positive legacy (in your judgment), that you did X, Y, and Z and everything in between. I will leave you to fill in the variables.

The observed point of view is also self explanatory -- its how others view your legacy. Others may see that you did X, Y, and Z and everything in between, either positively or negatively. They're going to be the ones that fill in those blanks.

Legacy is tied to what you value in living. While I did start off this post about legacy, legacy only inspired this post, because it is the concept of legacy that can skew someone's point of view about living. This post is about the value of living.

I'm a person that has been unemployed for nearly three months as a result to an acrimonious conclusion to my career in the automobile industry. I hopped from place to place, flaked out on job opportunities, and effectively ran myself out of the business. More or less I could say that I burned myself out, considering my care for, and consequently my success in, the business began a decline that never reversed itself starting in the late summer of 2010. I just recently acquired my life and health insurance license and I'm about to embark on a career in the insurance industry.

My family struggles financially. I'm not ashamed to say that: credit card debt crippled the household. It wasn't my family living beyond their means -- when the cost of living increases affected my grandparents, they turned to credit as alleviation. Unfortunately, it proved to be unsustainable and it snowballed. My mom, would suffer a hemorrhagic stroke that damaged her thalamus in 2010, does what she can with her disability (including still taking care of my grandparents with me acting in a predominantly relief role), but its still an unpleasant situation.

I think I can speak for just about anyone that would say that they rather have their life get easier as they get older than get harder. They do everything that they think they can do to prevent that, but it happens -- my grandparents and my mom have been affected by numerous health issues from strokes, to hypertension, to diabetes, or in my grandfather's case specifically, heart issues and a leg amputation. Needless to say, my house currently does not have the highest morale in the world.

Yet, through all of the shit that is going on, it made me reevaluate the value of living and the value of self, no matter how many times I'd elect to blow my brains out.

I'm not religious. I don't sit and pray to get through the day. That's not me. Nor is it really a criticism of religion or the religious. It's just not me. I'm not really a dreamer either.

Really, I only require three things to make me happy -- the ability to be creative and to act on it, my family, and to be myself.

I have all three. In August I completed Twenty Years, which remains my biggest artistic achievement. I still have the family that I grew up with. And, even with controversy, I'm still myself. It's the last thing that has grown on me, especially with the headaches of the past few years.

The value of living, the true good life, is not about how much materialistic possessions you can accumulate and retain. It's not about how much wealth you can accumulate and retain. It's not about how many people you can get to adore you. It's about day in and day out, you value and you appreciate yourself. I'm not talking about being a narcissist. I'm talking about that no matter what happens over the course of time, you never lose sight on who you are. It is you that's living, it is you that's breathing, and it is you that is making the most of an opportunity that you have been given to exist in this time and place, no matter who you want to give credit to.

I'm talking about not surrendering yourself for short term gain. You'll pay for it in the long run when you ask yourself what the hell happened to you. It's about fighting the good, smart fight when you're struggling; not fighting just for the sake of fighting -- you'll never prosper and when you think you are prospering, you're really not. I'm talking about looking in the mirror and not having to apologize to yourself for who you are, never mind having to apologize to anybody else.

To those that are struggling, keep in mind, fight smart and don't surrender yourself. It's not me trying to be motivating. It's me telling you the truth. Once you surrender yourself, any benefits that you think you may begin to reap are worthless because you will crumble under the house of cards upon the falsehood of self that you built. To those that are prospering, be proud and value your prosperity, but don't forget the fact that you are too, a human being. You're a part of this existence as much as the person that does not know when or where their next meal is going to come from.

I look at those that live in other countries, especially in the third world where the rule of day is poverty. In East Africa, men, women, and children struggle daily and fight for survival, not only out of necessity, but because they do value themselves and their own lives. It's a common theme amongst many that are poor -- while they lack a lot, they still have themselves, and its for themselves and for the ones that they care for is the reason that they keep pushing, even if they want to credit this belief system or that belief system.

Of course, there is the caveat to everything -- the human emotion. That's understandable and not everything I'm writing now is going to work for everyone because there are emotional and mental blocks that render a person defensive, and in cases, helpless. I'm not going to delve into total idealism, however, I will close with one thing.

This life that you live, no matter where you are or where you standing is what you make of it. It is whatever you buy into. It's whatever you accept or reject. Whatever it may be, value the fact that you live, breathe, and the fact that you even exist in this time and place of land and people period. That's what makes your legacy -- how much you truly embraced that.

WWE: No good stories? No good television

I have not watched the WWE on a regular basis ever since the Attitude Era heyday, so it's a bit odd that I'm actually writing a post about professional wrestling. I'm an artist, professional wrestling is performance art, so why the hell not. I have followed it, mainly because I'm curious about the product these days, and at times, I'll check out a WWE Raw, or two. However, I figured I would weigh in about why the WWE is really struggling creatively.

Let's face it: WWE product is horrific. If you thought back in the day it was really cheesy when it was the WWF, cheesy would not begin to define the product of today.

It's scripted entertainment. And like any scripted entertainment, if it's of high quality, you can forget about the fact that it's scripted, you can forget about some of the implausible aspects of the angles (or storylines for those that are not familiar with professional wrestling jargon), and just enjoy it. That's what made the Attitude Era and the couple of years after it so memorable -- not necessarily the content of the angles as so many fans claim, but because the episodes and the angles were well written.

The most successful years in WWE history were from 1999-2001, the peak of the Attitude Era, where nearly 15 million people would view WWF Raw and WWF Smackdown to watch stars such as Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, and Mick Foley, amongst others. Edgy, well-written, cohesive angles along with seasoned performers provided for an action-packed, dramatic, humorous, and entertaining two hours every Monday and Thursday night that would leave fans buzzing the next day either at school or at work

The key to any story arc -- whether it's professional wrestling or a sitcom or even a movie franchise -- is continuity. A corollary to that is confidence in the story arc to continue on it, following the five parts to the story -- exposition, rising action, climax, denouement (falling action), and finally the resolution. For professional wrestling, every angle needs every element in that order for it to be successful. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Before I continue, I'll use an example with probably the most memorable feud of 2001 -- the angle of The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin leading into the most popular Wrestlemania of all time, Wrestlemania X-Seven (17), which was held here in Houston in April 2001.

• Steve Austin won the Royal Rumble, which put him into the WWF title match at Wrestlemania X-Seven (exposition). The angle became about Steve Austin's quest to regain the WWF title. The Rock would win the WWF title from Kurt Angle at No Way Out, setting up the Wrestlemania title match -- The Rock vs. Stone Cold, whom would headline Wrestlemania for the second time in three years.
• The fact that it was The Rock and Steve Austin added intrigue to the story because of their intense rivalry that has existed between the two ever since late 1997. The rising action during the time would be how the conflict became more and more intense, as Austin showed his desperation to regain the title.
• The climax was the match itself, held at Wrestlemania. In one of the most memorable matches put on by both performers, the story of the match was Austin, no matter what he did, could not put away The Rock. The twist, or really what was supposed to be the heel turn (for those that are familiar with that, when a face, or good guy, becomes a villain), was when WWF chairman Vince McMahon interfered in the no disqualification match on Austin's behalf and assisted Austin in winning the WWF title from The Rock.
• The falling action took place the following night on Raw: The Rock demanded and was given a rematch for the WWF title, that was held in a cage. The Rock was in the cusp of winning until Triple H interfered, leading to a brutal and bloody beat down on the Rock at the hands of Triple H and Austin. This was done to write The Rock off television as he would take time off to go film The Mummy Returns.
• The conclusion was held on Smackdown as Vince McMahon would do an indefinite (scripted) suspension of The Rock as a result of the events on Monday. This concluded the angle between The Rock and Steve Austin

At the time, the head writer was Stephanie McMahon, Vince McMahon's daughter, and it was during that time some fans grumbled about how the continuity of the angles was beginning to suffer, especially in comparison to the quality of the previous year. The year 2000 was so successful because of the late Chris Kreski, who spent most of 2000 as the head writer of the WWF. Kreski would be at the helm for some of the most critically acclaimed mainstream feuds of the year -- Mick Foley and Triple H, The Rock and Triple H, The Rock and Chris Benoit, and Steve Austin and Kurt Angle. The draw of the angles, along with the draw of the performers such as The Rock and Steve Austin, gave the WWF the most mainstream exposure and acceptance since Hulk Hogan did so in the 1980s.

The reason why the angles worked so well was because of the continuity. The storytelling abilities of the performers only made it better. The episodic show format was in full stream with dramatic, promo-oriented segments that would set the tone of the show, always leading to an exciting, pulsating, over-the-top finish. Everything about every show served the angle; every promo that was cut by the performer; every action that was taken in the ring. It was all about advancing the angle and making it as entertaining and captivating as possible. The real secret, however, as to what really made the Kreski-era as head writer successful was his use of storyboards.

For whatever reason, wrestling insiders criticized Kreski for using storyboards. Yet, despite the cold reception, the storyboards worked. Raw was regularly scoring 6.5 to 7.5 ratings. Smackdown was doing a healthy 4.5 to 5.0. Fan interest was maintained and pay-per-views were meaningful.  How do you sell pay-per-views? Especially with a monthly pay-per-view system? To build up a conflict so much, to get people so emotionally involved in it, that people would pay their hard earned money to see it resolved.

If you notice in the past few years, few angles have actually followed that format, and it has been at its worst for the past three to four years. The WWE's last well written angle was way back in 2005 during the Dave Batista / Triple H feud. Observe:

• Disharmony between Dave Batista and Triple H (exposition)
• At a contract signing, Ric Flair and Triple H try to get Dave Batista to go to Smackdown so that Triple H would not have to defend his World Heavyweight Championship; Batista completes the face turn by attacking both Triple H and Flair and going on to face Triple H at Wrestlemania (rising action).
• Batista defeats Triple H in a back-and-forth match at Wrestlemania (climax).
• Batista defends the title against Triple H at Backlash; Batista would come out victorious, but Triple H attacked him with a sledgehammer the following night (falling action / denouement)
• Batista defends the title once again against Triple H, this time in a Hell in a Cell match at Vengeance, coming out victorious and effectively concluding the feud (conclusion).

Note, the contract signing episode for that Raw was the last time Raw garnered a 5.0 rating. At the time, Batista was a stellar performer (despite him being somewhat mediocre in his promos) and he had a relatively fresh character, so it was easy for fans to buy into the well written angle. The Backlash and Vengeance, which at the time were pay per views featuring only performers from WWE Raw, actually did fair numbers, considering both pay per views only featured 6 matches.

There were three angles that concluded in the past two months without any real resolution: the anti-authority CM Punk angle, the Cena-Del Rio feud, and the labor dispute angle. The CM Punk angle came to a close when the WWE had to throw Money in the Bank (and Royal Rumble) winner Alberto Del Rio into the title picture so that Del Rio could be the WWE Champion heading into their upcoming tour of Mexico. The strange thing is that the angle came to a close when the angle was actually at its climax, in the wake of very well performed matches with John Cena. The Cena-Del Rio feud never took off because it never got any foundation for a build up. The labor dispute came to a close this past Monday night when Vince McMahon made a surprise return and put John Laurinitis into the authority figure role. While obviously this was done to set the stage for Survivor Series and the return of The Rock, it serves as examples of how two promising angles (the Cena-Del Rio feud was a mere consequence of the Punk feud coming to an end) were stopped before they went anywhere.

There's a reason why the WWE can no longer hold its weight on Monday nights, even with Monday Night Football. It's not about how the characters develop or what direction this or that performer is going in. All of that is secondary as to how the angles are written. If the angles aren't written properly, then it provides for an undesirable show, both for the audience watching at home and the crowd in attendance. Maybe it would be a good idea for the WWE to start using storyboards again -- they need it. Well, at least that, and not have such a knee-jerk reaction to when angles don't work. While that's a reality because the WWE is a publicly traded company, the WWE shouldn't stray too far from a formula that actually brought the success that was the reason why the WWE went public in the first place.