It used to be that summer shows across American television networks were experimental fare or throwaways. This premise has been the subject of several columns this week nationally, and each writer has suggested just how good summer programming has become over the past few years.

They're right, although I don't think summers past had ever really been good for the boob-tube.

With all industry eyes focused on Fox' "So You Think You Can Dance," ABC plops in this harmless little celebrity-impersonator contest called "The Next Best Thing" on Wednesday night.

At work, we took one look at the show and thought, "How dopey."

After the hour was up, we thought, "This will be a hit, and it should be, as its title suggests, the next big thing."

While it didn't blow everybody out of the water, NBT, as we'll call it, did win its timeslot both here in the Oklahoma City metro area and nationally, albeit barely over the first hour of Fox' summer smash, in its third season.

The gist of the show is that impersonators compete for $100,000. They have to get past the judges to a later round and then, presumably, to a finals competition of some sort, in which somebody will win the loot. These people impersonate everybody from President Bush to the Honeymooners to Cher.

The contestant's collective schtick is at times pretty damned funny, and at others, it's so bad it's funny. What's consistent is that the show's judges are actually pretty funny, too, within the realm of critiquing the contestants Idol style.

NBT is not rocket science. It's geezers dressed up as Elvis and gay men dressed up as Cher. However, when a guy comes out dressed up as Robin Williams and is actually as funny as the comic with original material, it's hard not to be entertained.

When Jackie Gleason and Art Carney come out doing their Honeymooners thing to timely topics and edgy barbs, it makes one wonder why such a classic couldn't be reproduced for real in the right hands, and after an hour breezed by, completely entertained, I knew I was hooked.

The real trick to a show like this one is how well it can entertain three or four weeks into a season. Whether it can or not is yet to be seen, but I suspect it will pick up a significantly larger audience next week given that everybody I know who has watched it is telling somebody else about it.

No more Okies in the National Spelling Bee, although the Broken Arrow eighth-grader (Bruce Haiduk?) who missed "corydora" is a better man than I am on the spelling front. No doubt.

Besides, he looked as if a girlfriend was one day in his future, as opposed to most of those other kids ... I kid, but this event really has turned into compelling television, and one only has to thank 1997 champ Rebecca Sealfon's brand of wackiness, er, craziness.

Enjoy.

Along the lines of the column last week in which I invoked this national hatred of Wal-Mart among liberal yuppies, I've found that most of this crowd also hates Starbucks.

The thinking is that the national coffee-house chain embodies everything disgusting about corporate America. I'm not sure exactly what that is, but I suspect the chain's homogeneity plays a huge role in it. Every Starbucks is basically the same, like McDonald's.

The difference between Starbucks and every other mass chain is that they dictated to the marketplace that its customers would pay more for a product often considered to be a loss leader by other businesses. Starbucks told the world that they would pay $4 for a fancy cup of coffee and like it.

The world did, but unfortunately, nobody has bothered to even attempt competing with them at a local level.

Two points after a quick aside.

In online news, we strive to "win breaking news and weather" every day. No matter what the big story is, no matter what the other sites with tons of staff do, we're going to be first with breaking news and weather while you're at work.

Do that, my theory goes, and we'll win you over in other areas.

Well, there is a reason why Starbucks still dominates, and it's not because America is full of dopes. It's because nobody is out there "winning coffee" at a local level.

To me, coffee is 24/7. It's got to be on, fresh and ready at 7 a.m., 4 p.m. or at midnight. Doesn't matter when. If you're a convenience store that wants to win my loyalty as a customer, have the cheapest gas in town and the best coffee.

I will go out of my way not to buy my $1.97 venti cup of Sumatra at Starbucks if you have decent coffee. The convenience store closest to me did for months, under the marketing moniker of Bella coffee. They even gave us punch cards so that every sixth cup was free.

The coffee was always on, full and fresh. Multiple flavors and sleeves for delicate fingers. My rule is: no sleeves, no coffee. McDonald's packages their brew in a cup that doesn't really need a sleeve, but Starbucks coffee is so hot that you must have a sleeve to deal with it.

However, this convenience store changed its name from "All-Star Stores" to "Circle K," and the coffee has sucked ever since. They have glass pots out there, and the place resembles a truck stop instead of a place that looks like its ready to compete with Starbucks, which happens to be next door.

The price is irrelevant. One big cup of coffee at the convenience store was $1.17, and at Starbucks, it was $1.97.

Taste was pretty even. The Bella-brand coffee was smoother than Starbucks, but the latter makes your chest grow hair. I need that some days.

However, once Bella was no more, I looked for other places one could get good coffee on the cheap. McDonald's is good, but it's not great. In a pinch, it's actually a lifesaver, but at $1,09, give me the $2 Starbucks. The taste difference is significant.

On the other hand, 7-Eleven has great coffee. Problem is, as was the case this past Saturday, their stores are employed by people who don't get it. They showcase all these great donuts and pastries -- they're literally everywhere -- and at 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, the store at 12th and Robinson streets in Norman had not one drop of coffee going.

No wonder Starbucks kicks their collective butts.

The only reason I would even deign to step into a 7-Eleven is because they don't charge for using their ATMs, which is actually a big deal. They're also the only place in town that sells Yoo-Hoos, but unless I have a hangover (for which Yoo-Hoos are a terrific remedy), I won't be drinking them.

Convenience stores and fast-food restaurants aren't the only places to look for a great cup of coffee any time, if you're looking to avoid Starbucks. The Golden Corral here in Norman has great coffee, but at $1.59, you might as well go to Starbucks unless you plan to have 3 or 4 cups.

The best coffee in Norman, to me, is at the Waffle House. They have an in-house brand, and it is freaking excellent. I find myself leaving with a cup everytime I eat there, at their suggestion and out of their kindness because I typically rave about it everytime I'm there.

The problem with some of these alternatives is that they don't cater to a 24/7 schedule, nor do they really cater to somebody who just wants coffee. Believe it or not, coffee is actually damned good for you. Now, having 24 cups per day won't do you any favors, but to substitute plain, black, rich, fresh coffee for an otherwise fattening snack is really pretty smart.

I should note that I haven't tried Dunkin Donuts in a while. We have a 24/7 branch here in Norman, but the problem is that their donuts are so good, I can literally not resist them.

The importance of the coffee crowd, relative to marketing, is pretty simple. Coffee-drinkers are workers. They are routine-oriented. They are addicted to the caffeine, no matter how much they'll claim they're not.

Most important though is that they're all at Starbucks. The biggest pain regarding them is that even though they're everywhere, each individual coffee-house is always full. I stopped at a Starbucks on I-35 north of Ardmore several months ago at noon on a weekend day, and it was packed to the doors.

As consumers, we've proven we're willing to pay the extra money for great coffee on our schedule.

As business people, we have no excuse for not providing a cheaper but equal alternative. Collectively, I mean. I don't have any money nor any interest in starting such a business.

However, you better damned well believe I notice everytime your place of business sells cold coffee, peddles crap that comes from a percolator or doesn't even bother to have any in the middle of the day when I'm about to make a 100-mile trek to the other part of the state.

It's not that you lose my $2 in business; you lose my general loyalty. These businesses are really the reason Starbucks has succeeded. That company took a gamble upon the notion that people would pay a little more for great coffee, on the go, anytime.

They were a billion percent right, and to this point, I have yet to find a consistent, worthwhile, on-the-go alternative.

So, if I'm a convenience store or restaurant proprietor, I make it my No. 1 priority to win coffee. In a town like Norman, there are plenty of people looking for a Starbucks alternative, but there aren't enough innovators here apparently to make it happen.

If I'm wrong, tell me where I can go get a great cup of coffee at 10 p.m., any night of the week, and I'll do so.

What's everybody talking about this week? What's the scuttlebutt?

Not American Idol 6, the finale. Nope. Heck, I didn't even watch it, although I caught up with all I wanted to see via the magic of YouTube.

Truth is, I'm a sucker for pretty girls, and there's no way I could be anything but happy for 17-year-old Jordin Sparks. What's odd is that in an Idol season with lower ratings and arguably lower talent, I suspect there is a good chance this could be the most successful season in the show's history commercially.

Seriously. I think both Jordin and Blake could do well outside the confines of the Idol orb. Here's why. Jordin has a good pop voice and a great pop look, and Blake -- while he ain't my cup of tea -- is actually very good at the white-boy soul thing as it pertains to hip-hop-pop.

Don't think he could ever be a serious hip-hop artist, but I do think he'll triple whatever Taylor Hicks does in sales, which ain't much. However, after watching Melinda Doolittle sing with BeBe and CeCe Winans, I don't think there's any doubt how successful the Tennessee native and expatriate Oklahoman will be.

While it's quite possible the show has jumped the shark, well, at least among the older half of its demo, I can't think of a more exciting pop culture moment, period, than the moment when the Idol is announced (1:45 into the clip). It is literally more exciting than the announcement for Best Actor, Actress or Picture, and we freakin' knew who had won like 12 hours earlier!

It's fun to watch, and it's fun to see her excitement.

Nevertheless, for the purpose of this blog, we're done with Idol until January, and then I plan to scale way back, commenting only when something pops up in the news, becomes controversial or wows me.

Meanwhile, even more than AI6 though this week, we all talked about Rosie and Elisabeth.

For those of you who live under a rock, they got into an argument that I thought would turn into fisticuffs on "The View" on Tuesday.

I watched it live and must say that I thought it was the most beautiful 10 minutes of television in years. It was tense.

However, from another perspective, I think it was very disappointing to those of us who have supported Rosie O'Donnell from time to time. Truly, I think she'd be fun to have a beer with, somebody to yap with on the porch about all topics, ranging from politics to pop culture, whatever.

Likewise, I'm not a fan of Elisabeth Hasselbeck. She strikes me as a typical, upwardly mobile, SUV-driving, suburban mom. Not my bag at all. Now, I should be careful to note that it's the concept of the typical, upwardly mobile, etc. etc. that I don't care for, as opposed to the person who embodies it. Big difference.

I'll be honest. In the real world, while I wouldn't mind having a beer with Rosie and talking the topics of the day, I'd be more likely to befriend Elisabeth.

We have more in common ... oh, and she's hot. A guy can't have enough hot-chick friends.

This "war of the Rosie," if you will, while it made for great television was nothing more than Rosie bullying her colleague in front of an audience that would agree with virtually anything O'Donnell said.

Rosie fed off that, and not only started the argument, she also turned it mean. While I don't think Elisabeth is all that bright, I also don't think she's a total idiot, even if I've flippantly said it in other columns. Furthermore, I suspect she's a good soul, which counts a ton to me, even if she's merely a mouthpiece for right-wingers.

This was a classic case of two colleagues who had to work together, pretended to be friends and maybe even tried to be amicable but who, I suspect, despise each other. I've worked with people I hate. They knew who they were, too. They hated me as well.

Unfortunately, while I agree with Rosie most of the time politically, the loud, fat lesbian, as she called herself Tuesday, is in fact just a negative, angry person, and that's why the vast majority of Americans don't like her. I don't dislike her, but I can see past a lot of that negativity, and I understand the point she was trying to make on Tuesday, the dichotomy, if you will, of perspective she was trying to draw with regard to how other countries might view our troops.

Shame on reputable pundits like Chris Matthews for twisting O'Donnell's example into a situation in which folks actually suggested she was calling the troops terrorists.

However, Rosie absolutely went over the top on Tuesday, and she owes Elisabeth an apology. What's dangerous for Rosie, and why we should really feel some sympathy toward her is because, truly, those of us focused on positive energy, doing good and being productive should strive to eliminate negative, angry people from our lives.

Within the context of that statement, it's quite possible that Rosie one day wakes up and finds herself with no gig and no friends.

No, I don't think Rosie's all bad either. Like I noted before, I've been one of her biggest defenders, and I think "The View" will suffer with her departure.

However, the reason kids are scored on "how they play with others" as early as preschool and kindergarten is because it is possibly the most important lesson in life. For as talented as Rosie is, for as bright as she is, for as much as I dig her blog ...

She really struggles playing well with others, and it very well could be her pop culture downfall.

For the first time in my extensive driving history, I surpassed the $40 mark filling up my vehicle. In fact, I ended up closer to $50 than to $40, topping out at $45.06 on Sunday.

No, I don't drive a 4x4 pickup or an SUV. I drive a mid-sized, economy-class 2006 Mitsubishi Galant -- a Japanese car that traditionally has gotten terrific gas mileage.

At $3.36 per gallon, gas has never been higher here in Oklahoma. In fact, Oklahoma fuel prices are significantly higher here than they are in Texas, one of many cost-of-living myths I've discovered here in the Sooner State over the past two years.

The so-called fuel experts say it's because we've had refinery problems. About three weeks ago, a lightning bolt hit the plant in Wynnewood, which I think merely gave oil executives an opportunity to hike prices, and area gas stations are more than willing to collude.

However, conspiracy theories aside, the experts are right about one thing: Rising fuel costs are absolutely, 100 percent the result of supply and demand doin' its economic thing.

Even if there really was collusion going on among gas stations and convenience stores and even the oil companies, the fact that we're not reducing the amount we drive indicates that those aforementioned entities can get away with raising prices.

And, you know what? They can.

I fill up once per week just to get to work and back. That comes out to $200 per month now just to go to work. While one can live anywhere one wants, this amount is still essentially an off-the-top tax for every worker in America, well, unless you're lucky enough to be able to telecommute.

Two points: Companies would be very well served to increase the amount of telecommuting they allow because it could very much be a giant sell to qualified prospects. Also, suburban living might be a thing of the past for those of us who are obligated to drive.

In my case, because I work in news, it really is hard to play an integral newsroom role and be anywhere else than the newsroom for a majority of my time. Sure, when breaking news happens late at night or on the weekends, I technically can be anywhere and succeed at a high level; however, I am one of many workers who really has no choice but to drive.

However, my days of living in Norman very well could be ending.

It's 28 miles to work each way, and if I lived in Edmond, not only would I save time, I'd save a ton of cash.

Then again, one has to figure the cost of moving. There's the physical expense as well as the time required to pack up, load, unpack, resettle and then deal with all those moving chores. Might be worth roughly $2,000 to $5,000 right there for even a basic move.

On top of that, for me, is the fact that I love Norman, by far the best city in Oklahoma. Just no comparison to any other city. The only other city in the state that I have seen that I'd call prettier than Norman is Jenks, which is this anomaly of a town that looks like it was uprooted from New England and replanted in the boonies.

However, in Norman, I have a house. No crime. I can literally leave my doors unlocked if I wanted, and really the only thing I have to worry about are a couple of college kids tossing beer bottles into the yard. I can literally pound my piano as loudly as I'd like with no repercussion, which bodes well for recording.

If you'll follow me here, the point I am making is thus: While rising gas prices are a pain, while it is directly affecting my pocketbook starting now, I am pretty much not going to alter my life completely, uproot myself, just to save some money on gasoline.

And, I don't think I'm alone.

In my case, if I were to do one of those pros/cons sheets, denoting why I should live closer to work and why I'm OK here, even with the high cost of gas, gas would really have to get expensive for me to conclude that I should move to Edmond or far northwest Oklahoma City.

How high? That's the question for everybody. What will the market bear?

I suspect people's actual habits will not change until we get above $4.25. I think $4 will be a shock, but if that price per gallon were to keep rocketing toward $5, I think people would have to alter things a bit. However, to conclude automatically that people's driving habits would change is a bit premature.

See, I think we'll stop buying extra stuff at Wal-Mart. The retailer reported its worst fiscal year in almost three decades, and I think it has everything to do with fuel costs. People aren't looking for an alternative to the world's largest department store; they're just buying less.

In my case, I'll look at other ways to save money or even earn more. My thought for everyone is to not purchase goods at convenience stores or gas stations. No coffee. No soda. No cigarettes. Any place that sells gasoline at a price out of whack with the national average or even just-too-high shouldn't get the benefit of a dollar spent on any good from which they can actually make a profit.

Stations have always maintained that they sell fuel at cost. Close to it, at least. It's a way to get you into the store to buy other goods, such as fountain drinks, from which convenience stores can make like 1,000 percent profit.

Truth is, those of us who aren't millionaires and who are of a progressive mindset really should flock to Wal-Mart instead of constantly disparaging them. Frankly, I couldn't care less how they treat their in-store workers given that I don't take an active interest in how McDonald's employees are treated or how any other low-skilled worker is treated. It's hypocritical to take up the cross of the Wal-Mart worker and not other low-wage workers particularly considering that the difference in profit between Wal-Mart and other mega-corporations, at the end of the day, still makes thousands of old white guys rich.

What Wal-Mart does do, on the other hand, is make retail shopping affordable for middle-to-lower-class Americans. My suggestion in light of rising fuel prices, honestly, is to buy anything and everything you possibly can at Wal-Mart and go as far as to try to buy nothing elsewhere. In this way, Wal-Mart is able to sell their goods even cheaper, and the retailers hurt by your exclusion might have to reduce costs in order to up demand.

So, what I'm suggesting here is that we're not likely going to change our driving habits. We are married to our cars. It's inherently American, and it will not change in this generation for sure. Hybrids won't solve the problem. Other forms of energy won't be ready for the masses, at a price we can afford, anytime soon either.

Given that we won't drive less, meaning the oil companies will have no reason to reduce prices, we're going to either have to start working second jobs, or we'll have to cut costs ourselves. For most of us, it won't mean packing up and moving closer to work because, at least I think, most Americans place a high value on where they live.

However, we'll have to cut costs in other places, and my thought is that we reward the guys who sell goods at market value or less and not spend our dollars anywhere else, forcing an unnatural and probably temporary deflation. I mean, Wal-Mart is not going to start jacking up prices anytime soon. To be the cheapest is basically the organization's brand promise, to borrow from corporate marketingspeak.

That's one man's strategy, and I'm not sure I'll be able to perfect it. To be honest, I wish there were a little family-owned market here in Norman that sold organic meats and super-fresh fruits and veggies with a cheap coffee bar and some ocean-fresh fish, all unstained by corporate fingerprints and still at market cost or below.

However, that is just as unrealistic as to think any of our driving habits will significantly change anytime soon.

I'll be honest. I think I'm done for awhile with reality shows on which the public votes for anything. Idol. DWTS. The American presidency. All of it.

The beauty about something like Rock Star or The Apprentice or Big Brother is that its results were never left to total idiots. Sure, I wouldn't classify either Tommy Lee or Donald Trump as total geniuses, but each had a vested interest in who won their respective competitions, so they tended to make savvy picks throughout the course of a season.

Big Brother is all about alliances and strategy and unadulterated back-biting, which is beautiful to watch. Perhaps I should be watching Survivor more.

Alas, again, at the end of American Idol, the most deserving, the most talented -- and this time Simon's anointed -- doesn't win. Doesn't even make the finale.

However, Melinda Doolittle joins a terrific cast of castaways. Join Tamyra Gray, Jennifer Hudson, LaToya London, Chris Daughtry, and I'd even say Elliot Yamin as Idol talents who were booted off too soon at the hands of a fickle, attention-span-challenged (look, a squirrel!) public.

Doesn't mean the finale won't be excellent between Jordin Sparks and the talentless Blake Lewis; however, it does mean I won't be watching. Like my girl Kat McPhee sings, "I'm over it."

Seriously. When a movie comes out, and then its sequel is released and then a third and a fourth -- and eventually you realize nothing ever changes on top of the realization that the actual movies themselves don't get any better, you wonder whether or not the franchise should be retired.

Again, I go back to what I wrote about CBS' decision to pull Rock Star after two seasons. Yes, it needed tweaking, but the show itself had humongous potential to be a cult summer-hit, year after year, if not a network staple.

There is a market for talent-based competition on network TV that actually encompasses nothing but true-blue, awe-inspiring talent. However -- and this is a big however -- you have to leave the public out of it, I'm afraid.

In a country that picked its current president for not one but TWO terms, I can't say that I trust them to pick anything at this point.

However, unwanted editorial comments aside, Wednesday night's revelation that the public selected a guy who wore a tuxedo t-shirt last week and beatboxed to a 1980s arena rocker like somebody with a mild case of retardation (no offense to the aforementioned current president) several weeks ago over a woman who very well could be the next great Gospel singer if not a major Broadway star is pretty much the epitome of what Idol has been about for six seasons.

At first, one believes it to be an anomaly, a "shocker," but after awhile, you get the hint.

What's sad but so true is that it's this same analogy that can be made for our collective apathy about politics, particularly among liberals. There's only so much public idiocy one can take before moving on to something else. My gut hunch tells me the Republicans could nominate Jerry Falwell's dead corpse and still manage to beat whoever we nominate.

Sure, one hopes the Dems can get it together, nominate somebody truly strong and formidable and hope that candidate can communicate the winning message, put together the winning strategy and pull out a win. But most of us left-leaning types gave up on that a long time ago.

So, maybe, Idol should only be watched from afar like I watch politics at this juncture of my life. Fight the good fight, perhaps support the fringe candidates in hopes of sending a message but never, under any circumstances, believe the competent one can win.

With Idol, I say this every year and then re-enter the fray come January, but, honestly, after watching the Mavericks get spanked by a No. 8 seed in the basketball playoffs and seeing my team's owner profess his loyalty to a giant, white spare of a player, and then watching my Rangers get off to a 15-25 start with the worst pitching in baseball and the most overrated hitting instructor in the history of the game, not forgetting the whole Oklahoma-Oregon football debacle from last year, and then this reality-show nonsense, I have decided something.

It really IS time to get a $%&#$@%* life.

But, did I mention I am pretty excited about the upcoming primaries?

Look, a squirrel!

For weeks, I've espoused the talents of Brentwood, Tenn., native and Tulsa Union graduate Melinda Doolittle, and somehow over the past five weeks or so, she has slipped from frontrunner to a likely third-place finisher on American Idol.

Not sure why. America can be funny that way.

However, thankfully, the show's judges know what's going on in terms of public opinion. While I don't believe they know the exact tallies, weekly, I do think they understood where Melinda ranked in terms of popularity among herself, Blake Lewis and Jordin Sparks.

At the bottom.

Jordin commands the teeny-bopper crowd. Blake has won over hairdressers, middle-aged women and Rosie.

That's left Melinda to the rest of us, and for whatever reason, we're in the minority. Mostly adults. Many of us old enough to remember Tina Turner's heyday in the 1970s. Many of us classy enough to love Gladys Knight -- and many of us with an ear good enough to recognize that Melinda sounds like the second coming of their love child.

Not a copycat, but a real-deal, southern-fried, good-time Gospel hour with a tad-bit of Tennessee rock-n-roll, miniskirts and plenty of leg shakin', Doolittle isn't always allowed the latitude to perform songs that deviate from the formula, a la Randy Jackson's choice for her tonight -- Whitney Houston's "I Believe In You And Me," from the movie "The Preacher's Wife."

Yet when Melinda does deviate, she is unmatched not only on this show, she is unmatched in the industry. There is simply nobody her age (29) with her talent and with that unique, old-school southern style in the entire music business.

She not only deserves a place in the finale, she should already be a shoo-in to win Season 6.

However, she's not. Far from it. She's placed behind both Jordin and Blake the past couple of weeks, according to our benevolent spoilers at dialidol.com.

Long story short, the producers got to pick a song for each of the contestants, and for Melinda, they picked "Nutbush City Limits," from Ike & Tina, and it was a brilliant pick to showcase Doolittle's originality, at least relative to today's singers.

Longer story shorter, I told a colleague at work today that Simon Cowell needed to step up and say something, damnit, or we would end up with a Jordin-Blake finale, which I think most people recognize could be a stunning, underachieving bore, musically. Unfortunately, it could still happen, theoretically. I mean, Paula is brain-dead about 70 percent of the time, it seems, and Randy Jackson is tone-deaf the other 30 percent.

Nevertheless, Simon stepped up Tuesday night, saying that if he had to pick one person for the finale that it would be Doolittle. She's consistent week after week -- great voice, great talent, seemingly a terrific person even. At some level, I think Cowell recognized that an injustice would be done if she weren't to make the finale.

No, not an injustice in the league of most anything else in real life. I could name 795 things more important right now, societally, than whether Melinda makes the finale. However, when one knows the right choice, when one knows he/she has the power to influence the outcome and when one is in the position of making that outcome his business, he simply has an obligation to say something to ensure that this 29-year-old gets her shot at the title.

So, with 20 seconds left in the show, the credits rolling and Ryan Seacrest asking him who he thought would make the finale, Simon didn't dilly-dally.

He said, "I want to see my girl Melinda in the final.”

You have to understand the machinations of this show and his influence to understand that this all but sealed the deal for Doolittle, and I can't commend our resident nipple rubber enough.

Good man you are, Simon Cowell.

Some movies touch us, make us laugh, cry, act, sleep, whatever. However, rarely does a movie speak to me.

Wordplay, an IFC documentary about the New York Times crossword puzzle, its keeper and a contest for crossword enthusiasts did just that. However, I mean this literally.

When I sat down to watch this movie early Sunday morning, like at about 2 a.m., I had taken a muscle relaxer because I had gotten a terrible night cramp the night before, and it left my leg muscles uber tight and sore.

So, I started this movie featuring the great Will Shortz, the NYT puzzlemaster, with the intent of watching it but understanding it might put me right to sleep. Besides, I have never fancied myself a puzzler, somebody who does crosswords.

However, crosswords are something smart people do, and in a way they're something that can help keep the ol' brain fresh, even making a soul a bit smarter along the way. Builds vocabulary. Problem-solving skills.

So, I've always been a tad envious of those who can sit down and do the entire NYT Sunday crossword, for example. Those people are a ton smarter than me. No doubt. Bill Clinton does them, and those who know me that's tantamount to an edict that I should be doing them.

Still, I'm watching this movie, smirking at what a geek this Will Shortz fellow is. I mean, he went to Indiana University and majored, essentially, in puzzles. They called it enigmatology. Apparently, at IU, they have this thing (a tradition?) where students can literally major in anything they want.

Man, to think I could have majored in beer.

Nevertheless, about halfway through the documentary, which was very good I should note, Shortz explains that in his estimation the groups of people who should be best at crosswords, based on his experience are musicians and computer programmer types.

OK. I'm awake. And, I'm thinking to myself, "You have to be kidding me."

I should note that I've been a musician since I was three and a novice-to-moderately skilled computer geek since I was about 24.

Shortz went on to explain that the ideal crossword puzzle enthusiast actually would be a piano player because piano players read music in a way that's analgous to how a tough puzzle should be attacked. I'm paraphrasing, and I should reinforce the fact that I was on a muscle relaxer. I could have hallucinated this entire movie.

The movie followed one crossword enthusiast, a pianist, who spends his day sightreading music. I should admit that I suck at sightreading. Give me a lead sheet on anything pop, jazz, R&B, country, etc., and I can play it. Make it anymore difficult than a lead sheet, requiring that I sightread note for note, and I cannot do it worth squat.

So, perhaps Shortz means that crosswords are meant for those types of piano players -- the ones who can sightread.

Nevertheless, I like online games, so before I invest in a NYT subscription, I decided to try my hand at the online USA Today crossword puzzles.

Damn, I'm addicted. They have a little clock you can use to time yourself, which is apparently the carrot dangling in front of puzzlers, to be able to knock them out as quickly as possible.

Well, I'm not very good yet by any means. I've only done three, but my time has improved with each one, and I suspect that I will obsess over these for the next several weeks. For the record, my first puzzle took me about 40 minutes to do.

Told you I sucked.

However, I did each of the next two in under 24 minutes, and my goal is to be able to knock these out in about 10 minutes or less each day. If I can get that good, I'll give the NYT puzzles a try with the hope of proving its puzzlemaster right.

By the way, lest I forget, this was really a solid documentary. It's smart, and it's actually compelling.

Post-post note: I did my fourth puzzle of the day, and this one only took me 13:38, which bests my previous best by nearly 11 minutes. This does not bode well for my social life.

My friend Pat G. from Dallas posts RE: The Beatles Game, Part 1:

Interesting game. I think I'd have taken the Beatles over everyone on your list. I just think Paul needed John and vice versa to be consistently great. Regardless, I wanted to give you a few more to mull over. These are other musicians that (in one way or another) are close in stature to the Fab 4:

The Beatles vs. Frank Sinatra

The Beatles vs. Louis Armstrong

The Beatles vs. Aretha Franklin

The Beatles vs. Radiohead

The Beatles vs. Johnny Cash

The Beatles vs. Willie Nelson

The Beatles vs. Bob Dylan

The Beatles vs. Bruce Springsteen

The Beatles vs. John Coltrane

The Beatles vs. Miles Davis

The Beatles vs. Michael Jackson

The Beatles vs. James Brown

The Beatles vs. Ella Fitzgerald

... and because I think I could be surprised by your answers here:

The Beatles vs. The Bee Gees

The Beatles vs. Blondie

Well, Pat, honestly, I'd take The Beatles over everybody on that initial list except Sinatra and Miles. Lots of folks hate Miles Davis for who he was as a person; however, he introduced the world to Bill Evans, who I think is the greatest jazz pianist in history.

And, for me, Frank Sinatra -- particularly pre-1970s Frankie -- is pretty much unbeatable.

Not that big a fan of Satchmo. Aretha is overrated. Radiohead is terrible. Like the Man in Black, but not that much. Willie's staccato delivery makes me crazy. I've grown to have more of an appreciation for Dylan, but I still don't love his work. Most of Springsteen's stuff bores me to death. Coltrane is greatness, and that's a close one for me. Michael is great, too, but he's done enough terrible stuff to make me side with The Fab 4. Not a fan of James Brown in the slightest, and Ella's great but it's not like she wrote a billion great songs like The Beatles did.

However, for my experience, The Beatles win over all those except Frank and Miles.

As for the two you said could elicit surprise, you'd be correct.

I don't only like the Bee Gees. I revere them, but for me it's only the disco years. The whole late 1960s "Massachusetts" and "To Love Somebody" era is hideous. To me. Give me The Bee Gees by a solid margin on The Beatles.

However, as for Blondie -- and I like this innovative, ground-breaking pop-punk band -- I'd still take The Beatles. However, what's interesting here, at least in my mind, is that I would take No Doubt over both of them. Seriously. Gwen Stefani's rock-ska-pop band of the mid-1990s, I think, perfected what Blondie started.

In fact, "Tragic Kingdom" is still one of the five or so best albums I have ever, ever owned.

I thought about other people from this era I'd pick over The Beatles, and most of it would fall into a "what would I want to listen to right now" sort of question as opposed to "who do I really think is greater" type of scenario. It's pretty much accepted just how great and influential The Beatles were, and most of the time it actually is reflected in these scenarios.

On the other hand, like with No Doubt, I think there are some groups that, given some time, we are all going to come to appreciate vastly more than we do now.

Whether it's the Dallas Mavericks or American Idol, competition is at the heart of many of the things I enjoy. Although I aspire to activities that induce relaxation and good times and no stress, you may never find anybody more competitive.

My mom has always said that I hated losing even as a child. No, not like you hate to lose. Everybody says that. I mean, who's going to say, "I really enjoy losing?"

I mean it affects me at the core of my soul.

No, not when the Sooners lose. Many folk get tied up in their teams, in their reality show contestants, in their political candidates to the point that it makes them ill when they lose -- and, that stuff ... it just doesn't bother me a bit.

I have no control over it, or at least negligible control when it comes to something like a reality show.

However, it burns my ass to see somebody not try, not bring it, not step up, act apathetic, etc. When I went off on Dirk Nowitzki last week, it wasn't because he isn't a talented ball player or a terrific fellow. It's because, to me, he clearly doesn't have the same competitive core I have.

That bugs me.

I love it when people go for the kill. Heck, go back to Season 3 of "The Apprentice," and remember Kendra Todd.

She wasn't the brightest candidate. She wasn't the prettiest contestant. However, with about three weeks left in the competition, after having stayed under the radar for most of the season, Kendra Todd came out, drew the dagger and killed everything in her path.

It's one of the most impressive feats of competitive fury I've ever seen, and she won. I would have married her on the spot if she woulda had me.

My friends always kid me about my "man crush" on Josh Heupel, the OU quarterback who led those beloved Sooners to a national title in 2000. The source of this non-sexual affection is centered solely on the fact that this guy was probably the most competitive Oklahoma quarterback to ever don the uniform.

He would have done anything that season to will OU to a win, and by the end of the year he was playing like a crippled, middle-aged man but did so with superior intelligence and killer instinct.

If I may come full circle, it is that type of killer instinct that Union High School graduate Melinda Doolittle needs in order to win Season 6 of Idol In fact, if DialIdol.com and the AI message boards and the industry buzz are all aligned, she might need a Kendra Todd-like week even to make the finale.

Only once since the inception of America's most popular program has the most talented individual won -- Carrie Underwood in 2004. That's just my opinion. What's less of an opinion (again, my opinion) is that there has only been one instance of what I'd call "killer instinct" being used to will a victory in Idol history.

Kelly Clarkson.

For somebody to win a reality talent competition, it probably helps not to be damned near perfect to begin with, which Melinda is musically. In Kelly's case, she was a cute girl, but she didn't impress many folks until about halfway through the inaugural season.

By the time the Final 5 became the Final 4 became the, well, you know, she wasn't merely singing, she was murdering, dismembering her competitors and tossing them to the side. Surely, you can see that for the metaphor it is; however, suffice to say that this chick had killer instinct.

Lou Grant might have called it "spunk" some 35 years ago.

I know. He hated spunk. (You'd have to be an MTM fan)

Nevertheless, if the most talented individual is to win Idol, Season 6, she will need killer instinct, a pair of Clive Davis-inspired performances that not only overshadow Jordin Sparks and Blake Lewis but that make them look and sound like rank amateurs.

No, not everything has to be competitive. In fact, I try not to be competitive the vast majority of the time. However, when it comes down to it, if it's a must, if something big is on the line, what usually separates winners from losers isn't talent or ability ... it is sheer will and killer instinct.

There is a giant reason why television networks are pop culture's dinosaurs, or perhaps I should note that I can give you one huge example of television's failure to grasp pop culture.

CBS has cancelled "Rock Star" after two seasons.

This made the rounds a couple months ago apparently, and I wasn't invited to the board meeting. CBS clearly didn't consult me because I would have told them they have a gold mine on their hands.

No, reincarnating INXS wasn't going to reinvent CBS as a 21st century version of a network, and forming the band formerly called Supernova, chock full of "rockers" formerly known as musicians, wasn't going to turn CBS' modest hit (and, yes, it was a hit -- although, networks gauge summer ratings much differently than they do during other times of year) into an event like FOX has done with Idol.

However, this is where CBS failed the show, and the show failed the network.

I haven't heard execs preach this. I don't read the trades. I'm but a simple-minded country boy with tastes for city living, women, hard drink and loaded guns.

Yet I know that in the 21st Century, in these the oughts, to develop a television show into a hit the size of Idol, one must quit thinking about producing a mere television show.

You must produce an event.

Like the Super Bowl, the Mayweather-De La Hoya fight, the Academy Awards, like election night brought to you by old white men, kind of like The View has done under Rosie the past year. Seriously. People -- opinion makers, the fourth estate, etc. -- tune in to The View right now because they know that what is discussed on THAT show will turn into the afternoon's headlines.

It is required viewing for the TMZ crowd, much like Idol, with no bias on my part at all, is the watercooler show of all time. When a show becomes so big that you begin your morning meeting with a quick rehash of the previous night's events, you know you have an event on your hands.

Rock Star, we hardly knew ye.

Where CBS went wrong was by employing old has-been bands and new has-been "supergroups" as the carrot for contestants. Truly, the show should have been set up just like Idol.

Why mess with success?

Get the winner a contract -- a big one.

Hell, Chris Daughtry didn't go solo. He formed a band, and it is one of the five biggest new bands in the world right now, alongside "Nickelback," who I consider to be new compared, let's say, to U2, "Coldplay," "Fall Out Boy" and, I dunno.

Why CBS couldn't tweak the "Rock Star" formula to allow its contestants to vie for a contract on their own, in front of a panel of three judges (my choices for judges would have been Rob Halford, Courtney Love and Ryan Adams)?

Instead of having them sing cover tunes, why not have them sing their own music exclusively? To think that we as viewers couldn't handle that without becoming tired of the show is to underestimate us considerably. Heck, do we not remember Ryan Star coming literally out of nowhere for about three weeks, performing perfectly and showcasing original music?

The contestants would be responsible for writing music for their weekly performances, or at least performing previously written original music. However, they would be forced into collaborations with other writers, which often happens in the industry -- people writing with others because they have to for a project.

They would all have to play an instrument or at least hold one really cool-like.

And, don't even get me started on the Rock Star house band, which was the best television-show band of all time. Tight. Creative.

The fact that "Rock Star" failed after two years doesn't tell the story of a genre past its prime. It tells the story of a network without the creativity and vision to turn a solid summer television show into an event.

Lazy.

A quick look at the playlist I've started for May in my Rhapsody account:

"Better" - Regina Spektor

"Everyday is a Holiday (With You) - Esthero

"Penny on a Train Track" - Ben Kweller

"Like a Star" - Corinne Bailey Rae

"Vultures" - John Mayer

"Captain for Dark Mornings" - Laura Nyro

"When the Stars Go Blue" - Ryan Adams

"Ae Ae" - Angelique Kidjo

"Empty Hearted Town" - Warren Zevon

"Steady Rain" - Warren Zevon

So far, I've put together one of my better playlists. The latter two tracks are off a previously unreleased CD full of rare finds from one of the great songwriters of my lifetime. Warren Zevon truly is an IQ test in great songwriting.

Now, that Laura Nyro track is a classic also, off her "New York Tendaberry" CD. If you don't know who Laura Nyro is, she was Carole King before Carole King. She was also the brain behind some of the Fifth Dimension's best songs including the classic, "Wedding Bell Blues."

They're both dead.

Didn't mean to get your Monday started off on a down note. I just realized that Laura and Warren had a little something in common right about now.

If you have a tune I absolutely must add to this list, post it in my comments, and I'll give it a listen.

One of my colleagues asked me today, "Beatles or Elvis?"

This was a complete non sequitur considering I work in a television newsroom, but it's just the type of pop culture question I love. I told him without hesitation, "The Beatles," and I further commented that "I'm not much of an Elvis person."

Doesn't mean I don't like Elvis or appreciate his work, slim or fat. It just means that in general, I'm not buying the guy's CDs or memorabilia or even really ever listening to him except on accident.

However, my colleague then asked, "Beatles or Led Zeppelin?"

To me, this was a much more palatable selection. I really, really respect Led Zeppelin, and their music is more sophisticated than Elvis' ever was, which means I was faced with the choice between The Beatles' pop brilliance or Zeppelin's avant garde originality.

Slight edge to The Beatles on that one. However, I should note that I am no Beatles worshipper. Like them, even come close to loving some of their music, but I don't think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, although I would acknowledge they are the greatest band of all time.

No doubt. The hits, the respect, the longevity, the collection. As a band, they're unmatchable.

However, for me, how do they stack up against other classic rock and pop greats?

Now, I can't rightly compare apples and oranges here. For example, I would much rather listen to a new John Mayer disc than an old Beatles album, but I'm not silly enough to say I'd pick Mayer over The Beatles. To me, that is a non-sensical comparison.

But what if I visited a random Web site and used its collection of 2,500-plus classic rock songs to put a little Web meme together.

It's The Beatles game. I'll pit The Beatles against the artist in the list on that Web site, and I'll pick my preference straight up. If I had to spend the rest of my days listening to one act, which would it be -- that is how I base this.

Feel free to comment and let me know how you'd pick, unless you're a Beatles fanatic, which would take some of the fun out of it.

Beatles vs. John Lennon (solo) - give me John Lennon

Beatles vs. Gin Blossoms - can't stand Gin Blossoms

Beatles vs. Elvis Costello - Elvis Costello by a mile

Beatles vs. Nelson - are you crazy?

Beatles vs. Rod Stewart - man, if Rod hadn't done so much crap to accompany the greatness, I might have picked him, but I have to go with The Beatles.

Beatles vs. Van Halen - only a slight, slight edge to The Beatles

Beatles vs. Dan Fogelberg - I revere Dan Fogelberg. This is no contest.

Beatles vs. The Kinks - Beatles, buddy

Beatles vs. Smashing Pumpkins - can't stand the Pumpkins

Beatles vs. Paul McCartney & Wings - I was a child of the 70s. Give me Wings.

Beatles vs. Prince - slight edge to Prince

Beatles vs. Rolling Stones - slight edge to Beatles

Beatles vs. King Crimson - Beatles

Beatles vs. Chicago - Chicago, although only slightly

Beatles vs. Jefferson Airplane - Beatles

Beatles vs. Humble Pie - Beatles

Beatles vs. X - Beatles

Beatles vs. The Who - The Who is brilliance.

Beatles vs. Paul Simon - Give me Edie Brickell's husband.

Beatles vs. David Bowie - Bowie, Ziggy, etc.

Beatles vs. Billy Joel - old Joel, you bet

Beatles vs. Yes - Beatles

Beatles vs. Moody Blues - Beatles

Beatles vs. Elton John - tie. I tire of both pretty easily.

Beatles vs. James Taylor - JT all the way

Beatles vs. Loggins/Messina - Beatles

Beatles vs. Kenny Loggins - Kenny Loggins

Beatles vs. John Mellencamp - I'll take Johnny Cougar

Beatles vs. Leon Russell - slight edge to The Beatles although I worship some of the work Russell has done.

Beatles vs. Pink Floyd - can't stand Floyd

Beatles vs. Judas Priest - I do have a thing for Priest, but I'll give a slight edge to The Beatles

Beatles vs. Carole King - Carole King

Beatles vs. Ambrosia - I dig Ambrosia but will pick The Beatles

Beatles vs. Steely Dan - no contest. Give me Becker and Fagen

Beatles vs. Linda Ronstadt - Linda is my wife. Young Linda. On roller skates.

Beatles vs. Carly Simon - Sorry, give me Carly. Told you. I am a child of the 70s.

Beatles vs. Queen - Mercury, May and Co.

Beatles vs. The Cars - Beatles

Beatles vs. Bob Seger - Give me Detroit's finest singin' a little "Turn The Page" or "Night Moves"

Beatles vs. Tom Petty - Not to be too Petty, but I strongly prefer the American among these two.

Anyway, just killing time. If you have a Beatles vs. Group you'd like to offer, just comment below. I should probably be clear that I prefer The Beatles to almost any group popular today.

In terms of bands -- active bands -- is there anybody I'd prefer over The 1960's supergroup? I'd take The Beatles over U2. Definitely over Coldplay. But, give me Bon Jovi over The Beatles, and for that matter most of the metal bands of the 80s. I was kind of a strange metalhead, who enjoyed everything from Accept to Zebra.

Have a great weekend.

Dallas loses to a great Golden State team in the first round of the NBA playoffs, the first No. 1 seed to bow out to a No. 8 since the first round went to seven games.

Mega props to Golden State, a team whose actual NBA history is way deeper than most novice fans understand. Frankly, I hope the Warriors can pull a miracle and win the title.

But, for Dallas, this stings unlike anything in the city's sports history. Ever.

This after 67 wins during the regular season for the Mavs.

This after making the NBA Finals the year before.

What we Mavericks fans must acknowledge publicly is what we have all thought privately -- Dirk Nowitzki is a weak, soft, Euro basketball epithet. Pick yours. Mine starts with a 'p' and ends with a 'y'.

The NBA requires heart and nads, and he's got neither, just like -- well, you know.

Sure, I remember his performance in the San Antonio series last year. However, I also remember his disappearance in the finals, not to mention hundreds of games previous, and D-Wade's comments about him.

To wit, the Miami star said Dirk disappears during big games.

Yep. Well, come Friday morning, it's time that he be shocked back into reality. Mark Cuban should start working the phones, making the deal that gets him out of town. Send him to Minnesota for Kevin Garnett straight up.

Hell, get Kobe and find a spare, non-Euro banger to fill Dirk's role.

Truth is, we couldn't get Kobe for Dirk. We'd have to throw in Jason Terry or Diop, which would be fine with me. Jet was as big a choker in this series as he was in Arizona.

I'll take Dirk for Mikki Moore. For Corey Maggette. For anybody who isn't soft.

Mark Cuban has said he would not do anything but tweak this team, even with a loss. He pointed to the fact he didn't win any rings his first six seasons either.

However, this is different. Some perspectives are becoming self-evident -- among them that, really, Avery Johnson isn't a very good coach when it comes right down to it. Well, I should say that he's probably more inexperienced than incompetent, his inability to get his men to focus in the finals last year really killed us.

His decision to fall into Nellie's small-ball trap killed us this year.

Will there ever be a situation come playoff time that Avery will actually be the smarter, wilier of the two coaches? Probably not for a few years.

Come Friday morning, Mark Cuban should dismiss Johnson as coach. Just on principle. This performance has been unacceptable. Go get Larry Brown. Phil Jackson. Scott Skiles.

For anybody who thinks a great regular season means that much in professional sports, you're just crazy. It's all about the playoffs in the NBA, relative to the expectation set by a regular season.

For the Dallas Mavericks, to not win the NBA title after the 9th best regular season ever is not just a disappointment, it's humiliating and, frankly, unrecoverable.

Changes must happen. Starting with Dirk.

While editing a package we did tonight on healthy eating -- editing it for the Web -- I realized that I do follow one of the primary tenets of healthy eating.

Plan in advance.

The expert noted that you need to know what you're going to have for dinner by 3 p.m. everyday or else you'll go off the deep end and eat something that isn't good for you.

Fattening. Too carby or caloric.

Well, I always know what I'll eat for dinner by 3 p.m. However, often it's like "an entire pizza," "all the ice cream in West Norman," or "until I pass out."

On the other hand, many times I eat sensibly -- like tonight. I had a Fandango Salad from Panera, along with a chunk of whole grain baguette. Roughly 600 calories, max.

The lady on TV also said to make sure you eat a variety of colors each day, which goes back to something I heard from a dietary expert years ago: The more colorful your plate, the better, and they don't just mean that giant tub of Neapolitan ice cream either.

Nevertheless, I get the goodness of Panera home, and instead of watching the tube while I eat, I have this routine of Web sites I visit. Of course, as a producer of videos for YouTube, I now subscribe to many directors. Gotta watch those.

However, my first stop everyday is to Rosie O'Donnell's Web site for her morning Jahero blog.

Jahero is a concatenation of the names Janette, Helene and Rosie. I think Helene might do Rosie's hair, and I know Janette was in comedy at some point because she refers to Comedy U or some such. I've been watching for a couple weeks, and their banter is light enough that it doesn't interfere with my food.

However, together, they're actually quite engaging and humorous. Very dry. I'd go so far as to say that Rosie should consider offering them primary roles in her next venture, should it be a talk show. If it's a Broadway musical on the other hand, I've heard them sing.

It's just awright, dawg.

I'm not sure what it is about video blogs that fascinates me. The passivity of television combined with the irrelevance of a stranger's life doesn't seem like a combination that would make people watch and watch.

However, video blogs are original. They aren't controlled -- you can cuss, fart, preach, condemn, question. Right now, it's kind of the last bastion of truly free speech we've got going in America.

On the other hand, video blogs might be a bit less passive considering most of them focus on an individual talking to the masses. Not sure that it makes them any more fascinating, but over the past couple of weeks, visiting Rosie's morning blog in the evening has become something of a routine, not unlike popping on the TV used to be.

Whether this trend is good or bad is yet to be determined. After only two weeks, I'm not even sure I'd call it a trend.

When this series started between Dallas and Golden State more than a week ago, I told my Dallas-loving colleagues that Golden State would give us all we could handle.

After the first game, I said G-State would sweep. At worst, they would win 4-1.

I knew it. Don Nelson was in Dallas' head. He was in Avery Johnson's head. The Warriors came to ball, and Don Nelson was getting the most out of guys like Baron Davis and Stephen Jackson.

Matt Barnes had turned into the real MVP of the NBA.

Dallas' 67-15 year was going to be wasted, the third No. 1 seed to fall in the NBA's first round ever and the first since the league went to seven-game series in the opening round.

With a loss on Tuesday night, Dirk Nowitzki's days in North Texas would have been all but over. The crowd at the American Airlines Center would have booed its own team and owner Mark Cuban off the floor. It would have been an embarrassment, and I would have been right there with them.

Heck, as it was 112-103 with 3:51 left, I figured we were dead.

It was like watching Oklahoma come back against Boise State from down 28-10 in the fourth quarter of the Fiesta Bowl this January. We'd start to make advances, and I would think to myself, "C'mon, now, let's only do this if we're serious."

While Oklahoma didn't end up victorious, the Sooners took part in the greatest bowl game of my lifetime. It was a moral victory where there should have been one. Odd.

There would have been no moral victories for the Mavericks with a loss tonight though. I absolutely could have seen a Game 5 loss costing Avery Johnson his job. Johnson's decision to go small in the first game was a critical, numnuts error, and it allowed Don Nelson to set the tone of the entire series.

Don't get me wrong. I love Avery Johnson. However, I also believe in accountability, and losing in the first round to Golden State when you had the best record in the NBA, among the 10 best records of all time, is not acceptable.

The Japanese would insist their team leader fall on a knife; the least we could do is insist on a resignation.

However, of all things, Dirk The Supposed MVP led us back, and the Mavs escaped with a 118-112 win after a 15-0 run to end the game. It was a stunning collapse that, actually, reminded me of Miami's Game 3 win in South Florida over Dallas in the finals last year.

We had it. They took it. Mysteriously, they ran the table.

In this case, the Warriors had it, and we took it.

Dallas must do like Miami did last season, what we did against the Rockets two years ago, and I'm here to tell you it's possible.

First, Dirk needs to step up tomorrow and go Mark Messier on this sucker, guaranteeing a Game 6 win like the Rangers' hockey captain did against Vancouver in 1994. Guarantee it, and don't fiddle around.

See, Dirk's career in Dallas is all but over with a first-round series loss to Golden State. The organization will have little choice, in my opinion, to trade him or, at least, to demote him to second-fiddle, bringing in a bigger star to run things, allowing the soft German to be the Gilligan to somebody else's Skipper.

So, we need Dirk to step up and take the pressure off. I absolutely believe guaranteeing a Game 6 win in no uncertain terms would get his teammates in the right mindset. They need to approach the next two games as if their very lives depended on it. Like it was everything. Like they are the underdog ... because at this point, they are.

Second, Mark Cuban is a billionaire. If he wants to escape the first round, he needs to find a way to find out who owns season tickets in Oakland and buy them out. Buy out the lot of them. Send loud Dallas fans to Oakland.

You don't think this is possible?

Golden State doesn't exactly have the most passionate fan base. They can be bought.

Lastly, the Mavericks need to secretly designate somebody in BOTH a Game 6 and Game 7 to get Baron and Stephen ejected. Deadly serious. Without those two guys, the Warriors cannot win, and while both Davis and Jackson are terrific players, they are stupid, emotional players.

They can't control themselves.

I nominate Erick Dampier. Talk some smack. Give a hard, clean foul or four. Lure them into something stupid, and do it such that the league will never know.

The latter two ideas are pretty out there. I know.

I would love the idea of taking Baron and Stephen out if it could be done in a way that would be inauspicious to the league.

However, what Dallas really, really needs is for Dirk to be a man.

Stone up. Guarantee a Game 6 win. Guarantee a series win. Guarantee something.

He might as well because a loss in this series could spell the end for Dirk in Dallas.