Hotel for Dogs

This past week I (got the opportunity to?) have dinner with a few relatives of Miss Maniac's. As we sat down we went through the pleasing human ritual of the initial process of finding something of common interest to talk about while dining. Surprisingly, the group lacked a depth of interest in the latest bubble projections and I lacked an interest in the various medical ailments of the group. Perhaps by default the conversation ended up on movies.

"Have you seen any good movies recently?" Innocuous. Stimulating and Safe.

I asked the group if anyone had seen Slumdog Millionaire. It really is a delightful film I told them. Two enthusiastic Maniac thumbs-up!

The four looked at each other quizzically and responded that they had never heard of such a film.

"Never heard of? Sure you have! You know, the movie that won all the Oscar's two nights ago... set in India...the kid goes on the game show, raises up from poverty...powerful tale of love and struggle... nothing???" Hmmm, nope, sure haven't. Doesn't ring any bells...but it sounds pretty "neat."

I am pretty sure Roger Ebert did in fact describe both this film, Raging Bull and Casablanca as "neat" as well, so we might be on to something.

The woman at the head of the table was undeterred by this weird foreign film I had introduced and proceeded cheerily with her own movie recommendation, just for me. "Do you know what movie you HAVE to see? You will LOVE it. It is really really good!"

"Hotel for Dogs!!!"

The entire group burst into unilateral support for the fabulous recommendation. Over the next three minutes I blankly endured a thorough plot description, without ever reaching the what-I-assumed to be inevitable punchline. I shall spare you the details, as I can't imagine the movie merits more than a two minute synopsis. As I looked around the room for Ashton Kutcher with a camcorder, or perhaps some new celeb-less version of a similar show; perhaps "I'm F***in' Witcha!" (It would have been a smash on the old WB...), a strange reality washed over me.

It is nothing personal. No one is ostensibly "right" or "wrong." I am simply in the wrong room at the wrong time.

I don't belong here.

And the Oscar goes to....

I think several teams across the country are about to come to the same stark realization.

The Siena Saints became media darlings of late, though most of the media writing about them had never actually seen them play. But golly-gosh their RPI is through the roof. The loss to Niagara by 15 on Friday might have put the kibash of the automatic bid plans. Their non-conference schedule was admittedly tough in spots; however outside of the their three "quality losses" (one was to Wichita State) in a pre-season tourney in Orlando, a trip to Pitt and a trip to Allen Fieldhouse against a yet-to-peak Jayhawk squad, there isn't much meat on the resume.

The best win on their resume is a 1-pointer over St. Joes and a split with aforementioned Niagara. After that, a win over Cornell. Sentimentally, we like the Saints. In reality? They just don't belong here.

It is a similar situation for Utah State. 26-4 is a gaudy eye-opening record. They also boast a nice early season 2-point win over Utah (who lost their opener to Southwest Baptist, FYI) and a respectable 5-point loss to BYU. Their best win aside from Utah is a split with Nevada. They also were beaten easily in their national TV debut by a Patty Mills-less St. Mary's. Their strength of schedule is ranked somewhere in the low 200's.

Here is the rub; do the Aggies lack quality wins because no one will play them? Or do they lack quality wins because they are not quite good enough to consistently beat quality teams? It is a tough question to answer with assuredness because life lacks absolutes. Let me instead challenge you...

Answer the following question as honestly as you can: Is Utah State better than Notre Dame? Cincinnati? Florida? Kentucky? Michigan? Creighton? UNLV? Minnesota? Virginia Tech? Boston College?

If the answer is "yes" then by all means, the committee should punch their dance card. God knows the tourney is a helluva lot more interesting with a fistful of Cindereallas (see: 2006) than it is with a bunch of 12 & 13 seeds who have been on national TV fourteen times already. However, if the charge is still to put the BEST remaining 34 teams into the field...it is hard to put the Aggies on that list.

Sometimes, as uncomfortable as it might feel, you just don't belong.

Want More? Have something to Say?
Read, Rant, Agree, Disagree...Curse at Us (nicely please)
Do it all @ MarchManiacs.com