America's Got Talent...I Swear I Didn't Know

     AGT, as it is affectionately known, is currently in its seventh season and, apparently, has undergone some major changes. I say "apparently" because I have never seen the show before this season (I had mistakenly assumed it was a bastardized version of the Gong Show) and had to rely on friends, who have watched the show since its beginning, to verify a statement by the show's executive producer, Simon Cowell, that I read somewhere promising a "top to bottom makeover". According to my friends, swapping Piers Morgan for Howard Stern at the judges table does not a "top to bottom makeover" make. The show looks the same to them, right down to the acts that look suspiciously like slightly modified ghosts from seasons past, and some of them, I won't say who, want Mr. Cowell branded an oath breaker, or worse (I believe one of them muttered something to the effect that drawing and quartering was too good for him). To this I say...THBPBPTHPT! and stop picking on my new favorite show.
     How can anyone not love this show? It has everything. It has ordinary people with extraordinary talent and, in some cases, stories with the power to motivate you or maybe even break your heart. What's that you say? American Idol already has that? Why yes it does. It also has its fair share of talentless hacks, some of them also certifiably delusional, who beg the judges for a chance to prove they really do have talent after they've already proven, often in a way that's spectacularly cringe-worthy, that they don't. But what American Idol doesn't have (anymore) is a panel of judges so entertaining that we hang on their every word.
     Sharon Osbourne has a wicked sense of humor tempered by a gracious charm that cracks me up as it puts the contestants at their ease. She is someone that you could take to your obnoxious, Christmas hating in-law's house for the holidays and a good time would be had by all.
     Howard Stern, her polar opposite and AGT's much hyped "larger than life personality", keeps viewers and contestants alike on edge as we all wait on bated breath for whatever profanity laden or politically incorrect (or both) atrocity that past history tells us he is easily capable of spewing with or without provocation. So far, he seems to be on his best behavior. I credit NBC's fine people in charge of editing for the kinder, gentler version of him that we have been treated to thus far because something (past history again) tells me that once the live shows begin airing we are going to get the rule breaking Howard Stern that should make NBC honchos fear the wrath of the FCC. I, frankly, will be disappointed if we don't.
     And then we have Howie Mandel. There is something about the sound of his voice that makes me laugh as soon as he starts talking, and the things he says never fail to be hilarious. He has a sharp mind, a quick wit, and an impulsiveness that makes him the most fun of the three judges and the one that I hope Mr. Cowell keeps the next time he decides to do a "top to bottom makeover".
     Of course, no show of this nature would be complete without a host, and if there's anyone out there more adorable in this capacity than Nick Cannon I don't know who it is. Whether he's outside amid the crush of hopefuls, backstage with the contestants' families, or onstage with the contestants themselves, he is always interested as well as interesting (not easy to pull off), supportive, caring (all those nervous kids got themselves a great temporary big brother), and, best of all, he's game for anything...check out his turquoise duct tape bikini top wearing self pole dancing with Lulu on YouTube if you don't believe me.

     As for the acts, it turns out that America really does have talent. Among my favorites are musician William Close who played what he called an "earth harp", a giant instrument with strings that spanned the entire length  of the Orpheum Theatre, and escape artist Spencer Horsman who managed to extricate himself from a straight jacket while hanging upside down beneath a giant steel trap being held open by a burning rope with only eighty seconds of life before it was extinguished, springing the trap. Both performances were seriously cool, but the act that made me cheer out loud (and draw unwanted attention of the creepy variety to myself) was Andrew De Leon's. ***Note to self...never watch AGT in the electronics department at Walmart.*** It was amazing. Now, I do not like opera and don't allow it to be played in my general vicinity (it's one of my hard and fast rules), but I was mesmerized by Andrew's performance. It could have been partly due to shock. He confessed to the judges that he was self-taught and had never performed for anyone before, not even his family. Since this is almost never good, I cringed. He looks like he could be Marilyn Manson's kid brother so I broke another hard and fast rule of mine and, adjusting my expectations to his appearance, waited for him to belt out Personal Jesus or Disposable Teens. Then the most amazing aria poured from him as effortlessly as most people talk. It was powerful and filled with raw emotion, and I couldn't have walked away from its beauty if I had tried. It would have pulled me back. I have never heard anything like it before but will get to again on Monday. ***Reminder to self...NOT at Walmart.*** I can't wait.
     So, what do you think? Are you a new fan or an old fan or no fan at all? Have you picked an early favorite for the win? And how about those judges? Are they the funnest bunch of people to watch, or what? You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.

Another Blown Call...Expansion of Instant Replay in MLB Long Overdue

     Memorial Day. Boston. Tigers vs. Red Sox. Bottom of the second. Two outs and a runner on second. Mike Aviles swung with two strikes on him. He missed. It wasn't even close. Tiger catcher Gerald Laird caught the missed ball cleanly. No bouncies. No dropsies. Replays confirm this. Mike Aviles was not called out however. His clean swing was ruled a foul tip by plate umpire Jeff Nelson, and the clean catch wasn't clean because the ball was in the dirt first according to first base umpire Bill Welke. So, what should have been the end of the second inning became a rally for the Red Sox who scored three runs, which, incidentally, was the number of runs that the Tigers lost by that day. All courtesy of bad officiating.
     Jim Leyland, the Tigers manager, wants some accountability. Tiger fans, most of whom are still irate over Jim Joyce's bad call at first base that cost Armando Galarraga his perfect game two years ago today, want what most baseball fans want...Recourse.
     Wish granted. Sort of. While the latest officiating debacle did not instigate next season's expansion of instant replay, it did underscore the necessity driving it and prompted much discussion, as well as speculation, about the specifics of the expansion and how it will impact the game.
     According to ESPN's Jayson Stark, who appeared on the Mike and Mike radio show the day after said debacle, there is a strong possibility that, under the expanded instant replay, appeals of calls pertaining to fair vs. foul balls and caught vs. dropped balls would be decided by a panel of umpires from a central location. It is believed to be a plan that would satisfy its opponents by allowing final determinations to be made by umpires in a system that would create more jobs for them. It would also satisfy arguments that an already lengthy game would be subjected to unnecessary delays since the umpires on the field would remain there while others reviewed the play being appealed. So, the proposed solution to the problem of bad officiating is meant to satisfy the same officials whose inability to make the right calls in obvious situations necessitated an expanded system in the first place? Not exactly the accountability that I think Mr. Leyland was talking about.
     Or necessarily the recourse that the fans were hoping for. Mr. Stark tells us that the expanded system next season will be "introductory" and limited in its scope. It could be further expanded, he says, to cover "all sorts of calls after a year or so" pending successful negotiations. Translation:  A year from now the Tigers will still be getting hosed on the same calls that cost them a game against the Red Sox on Memorial Day and one of their pitchers a perfect game two years ago. BUT they can hope for some fairness the following year, or the year after, should negotiations favor expanding instant replay to include reviewing plays involving clean swings vs. foul tips and runners being called safe when the ball clearly beats them to the bag.
     It's also probably important to note that no amount of expansion of the instant replay will resolve issues involving calls open to interpretation to the satisfaction of everyone. Trapped balls and fan interference, for example, may or may not be ruled correctly initially or on appeal, which makes overturning a correct ruling a distinct possibility. Is it just me, or does it seem like the expansion has the potential to create more problems than it solves? Oh wait. How silly of me. Of course it does. I know this because I see it every fall when Michigan plays football.
     To sum up...It's pretty clear that an expansion of the instant replay is needed, but the expansion being negotiated is insufficient and seems to be tailor made for the people responsible for the mess requiring its solution. Jim Leyland has been preaching "patience" to Tiger fans who had hoped for a better start this season. I guess we're going to need it because, while a sufficient expansion won't solve all the Tigers problems (stranding WAY too many base runners, for example) it would have given them the win that they earned on Memorial Day.
     So, tell us what you think. Are you in favor of an expansion of the instant replay? If so, is the proposed solution sufficient? Or do you want human error to continue to determine the outcome of the game? You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.