Do you remember when Brett Favre retired?  No, not last time the time before that.  Remember the time when he called it quits from his beloved Green Bay Packers and it was a special day for football for about 4 months.  That's the time I'm talking about.  That was the time when his beloved Green Bay Packers turned into the team that didn't want him anymore.  It turned into Brett wanting to be back; he made a mistake and wanted his job back.  Problem was that Aaron Rodgers was waiting for his chance to take over the prestigious position of Green Bay Packers starting quarterback.  So both sides barked at each other.  We had gossip coming out of both camps and it just turned into a bitter battle that didn't really end too friendly.  Does this situation sound familiar?  It seems like Jay Leno is Brett Favre, Conan O'Brien is Aaron Rodgers, and NBC are the Green Bay Packers.  The difference is that the Packers played the cards right and NBC played them completely wrong.

NBC could've never been in this predicament if they would've just looked over the Brett Favre/Green Bay situation.  Green Bay knew there was no way they could let Brett Favre back on the team.  They offered him a marketing package worth multi-million dollars and he didn't want that.  The one move the Packers did make that they got extremely lucky with was asking Brett to join the team as a backup.  Brett said no of course; unfortunately for NBC, Leno said yes.  This is basically where the tide turns.  We all know what happened to Brett.  He went to the Jets and that didn't work out great.  Retired and then came back to the Vikings and so far, so good.  We don't know how it will end up, but at least he moved on and made the best of the situation.

Leno on the other hand couldn't just leave.  He could've taken jobs in Vegas making millions upon millions each day and he wouldn't do it.  He could've just been happy with his fortune he's amassed and went home and realized he had a great career, but didn't.  Instead he took the backup role.  Well, sort of the backup role.  NBC didn't know what to do with him.  They could've move him later then Conan and they knew earlier wasn't a good time spot, but still they pulled the trigger.  They built up his show, gave him the great guests, and tried to make it work.  It didn't.  Conan was setup to fail.  He waited the whole time to get to this spot and then NBC took it away immediately and gave it back to the old man.

What NBC did was basically take Brett Favre and give him a job as the QB coach.  He's not the #1 guy on the team, but he's still got more leeway then the #1 guy on the team since he's coaching him.  Then they'll see how Aaron Rodgers does at QB and if at the twelve game mark of the season he is only 6-6 then they'll release him and bring Brett in to take his job back.  That's what NBC did to Conan and thankfully that's what the Green Bay Packers didn't allow happen.

The Packers organization was much smarter then NBC is or they just got lucky.  Either way they aren't the ones shoveling out $45 million for a botched move.    Maybe television executives should pay more attention to sports organizations.  Sometimes the situation arises when the old man on the team doesn't really want to give up his job, but you know you have to do it.  So I hope NBC is happy with their $45 million loss for a lesson they should have already learned.

Sports programming has gotten pretty darn good in the past decade.  We've seen increased in the number of sports sports, including separate networks for each major sport.  High-definition television has allowed us to view all events in a whole different way.  The sports that we're boring to watch are now exciting, or at least bearable, thanks to HD.  We have the ability to basically watch any sports program around the world at anytime, as long as you want to pay for the specific packages to be able to do so.  We have availability, we have lots of abundance, we have great visuals, but we're still no place near the ceiling of sports television.  This where I think we're going.

I can't predict much.  I don't know what's for dinner tonight, what time I'm going to sleep, or who's going to win the Lakers/Cavs game tomorrow, but I do know technology.  I can predict technology.  Everyone thinks that technology changes everyday, and it does, but what people don't understand is that technology is very predictable.  If a new feature is instituted on some sort of electronic and it goes over well with the public then chances are it's going to be brought on to every other electronic available.  That's the basis of technology; making life simpler.  For some reason or another televisions haven't gone into the realm of upgrading software, but instead have focused on the hardware.  Thinner TV's, brighter TV's, bigger TV's, larger contrast ratio, higher refresh rate; that's what we have to look forward to when picking a television.  Televisions are starting to catchup.  Enhancements are coming in terms of WiFi enabled televisions and 3D displays.  Those two enhancements alone are where the fun starts when in comes to the future of sports television.

I'm sure we've all experienced 3D at some point in time.  Well if you haven't, just know it's coming soon.  ESPN has already stated they will air 85 live events in 3D starting in June and Discovery is having their own dedicated 3D station as well.  Get used to it, 3D is here to stay.  What's not here to stay are the 3D glasses.  Televisions are being built that don't need the glasses to see the dimensions.  Soon it will be the norm to have sports in 3D.  Just like HD is now, it's almost un-American to watch a sports event in standard definition.  The same will happen with 3D.  What's more interesting is how the WiFi enabled televisions and the cable companies can help bring interactiveness to a new level.  I think televisions are going to become much more app friendly and touch screen enabled.  We will be able to watch sports and just tap the screen or a button and be able to view live box scores from the current game and other games.  We will be able to chat with fellow viewers across the globe while we watch the game.  We will be able to choose what audio we want to listen to from the local stations or the national station.  Replays will give us a chance to rotate and zoom in on the situation ourselves.  Online voting for questions will be instantaneous.  There will be apps to travel through the inner parts of the stadium, basically allowing us to go on our own personal tour.  Fantasy live stat trackers will be up on our big screen.  We can having a scrolling bar with our fantasy teams in our leagues and have the updated scores run across.  We will have different angles to watch the game from.  Basically all these new improvements will give us more freedom and more flexibility to do whatever we want.

The possibilities are endless.  It's basically whatever we come up with and want.  The basic apps like Facebook and Twitter will be there as well.  Netflix is a given and having our email available will be nice too.  So if it seems like sports on television is great now then just wait for another five years or ten years; it's going to be crazy.  We will finally have the opportunity to watch sports with our friends, families, or fellow fans and none of us will have to be in the same room.

I'm not a person who gives a lot of money to charity.  I don't know what sounds worse; that sentence or the title of the column.  I do try to give as much as possible by doing different things that I think is charitable, but I'm not usually one to help out at the soup kitchen or try and raise money for a cause.  I'm not going to try and pretend I do because I don't want to be seen as something I'm not.  I can say if I had lots of money I would, but who knows then either.  Either way I guess I prioritize other expenditures and other time induced activities over charity work.  I guess I'm just not that philanthropic, so be it, at least I can admit it.  But guess what?  I donated to Haiti!

I donated to Haiti.  I don't know if it was really the earthquake and all the casualties that made me want to give or if it was the public response to the situation that I felt I should give, but either way, I did.  I don't want any praise though.  I don't want any good job, that was nice of you, or any sort of statement projected towards me for doing a good deed, that I'm still not sure why I actually did it.  Why should I be complimented?  Because for one time in my life I went beyond my normal ways and donated money to help the needy?  Does someone like me actually deserve a compliment?  Now let's get this straight.  I'm not a bad person by any means.  I constantly am helping people in various sorts of ways.  Usually it's fixing computer problems or finding out information for people.  Friends, family, and acquaintances know that if they contact me for anything I will try my hardest to do whatever I can for them.  Even when I do that sort of "charitable" work I don't want any money or praise.  I like knowing I did something nice for someone.  I fixed a computer problem that's easy for me to do, but very complex for the person who needed help.  I like knowing that I'm needed.

This is why I don't think we should be praising these athletes for their charity work towards Haiti.  One day Gilbert Arenas is a bad person for being stupid and bringing an unloaded gun with him to the arena and the next day he's Pope Gilbert John Arenas the Zero.  People flock out of the woodwork in times of catastrophe.  I saw a celebrity phone bank on Larry King last night and we've all seen the messages flying around Twitter and Facebook to text to donate $10 to Haiti.  This is great by all involved, but there doesn't need to be any praise.  Now I'm not pointing out all athletes.  I don't really know which ones do more charity work then others, but I do know that I've turned a blind eye to it if it's been in front of my face before.  I just hope we don't see these celebrities on television who are working for Haiti and immediately think that they are the greatest people in the world.  People put on facades and people are ruthless.  I'm sure some of these people are doing this for their own public image and don't care anything about charity.  Then again, I still don't know why I donated.

All I'm trying to say is let's look at the situation for what it is.  A catastrophe, a tragedy, a natural disaster, whatever you want to refer to it as, it's still an unsettling event that will take many years or decades to recuperate from.  We can be somewhat thankful for the celebrities who are trying to help or who have donated millions of dollars to try to help, but lets' not focus on that.  We love to focus on the people who are helping instead of the people who need help.  I just want people to focus on what needs to be done and not what has been donated.  Like I said above, I like knowing that I'm needed.  I like being a person who can help.  I didn't donate money because Jay-Z or Lebron James was doing it and I didn't donate any money because I felt it was the right thing to do.  Maybe I finally decided to donate money to charity because for once it felt like they really needed me.

I hate when I hear analysts or ex-coaches talk about how a loss for a team was a good thing; it came at the perfect time or it will prepare the team better for the future.  I don't buy it.  I don't think losing is ever a good thing.  Anyone can lose, not everyone can win.  I think our country as a whole might have lost some of that winning at all costs attitude within the last couple decades due to the increased attention on political correctness.  You can't talk about this, say this about that, and don't ever refer to or mention this to those types of people?  We have all these unwritten rules that tell us how to speak to different people and act different towards different people just so we don't hurt their feelings.  We wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings in 2010.  No way!  In 2010, that would mean that the person you made fun of would probably charge you with harassment, file a slander lawsuit against you, and then go and seek counseling for the grief that was caused.  People just go to the extremes these days and it seems like it's not just in common situations, it's in football games too.

We've seen it before and we saw it yesterday.  A football team scores a late touchdown and the losing team gets all upset and blames the other team for being classless.  I think it's classless for the loser to complain.  I think someone like Keith Brooking is a bigger loser because after letting the Vikings run rampant on your defense you finally get upset because they scored a late touchdown.  It's ridiculous in my mind and something that is increasing in sports these days.  Losers can't just accept a loss they have justify their losing on another team's actions.  It's never their total fault for losing.  It's the refs, the coaches plays, the ball was thrown bad, the weather, etc..., etc...

This is why I think that you don't learn anything from losing.  It's too easy to lose.  Everyone can easily have the feeling of losing and feeling upset against the person or team that put you into that melancholy feeling, but not everyone can be a winner.  Most people probably don't know what it's like to continually win.  The type of confidence that can be seen with the way that some players run with the ball, some players throw the pass, and some players just have that happy grin; knowing nothing is going to stop me.  Winning is a disease; it's an attitude and a way of life.  Losing is a feeling and a predicament.  I don't know why anyone would feel that they want that feeling or predicament, I'd much rather always feel like a winner.

Losing is never a good thing.  All losing does is turn you into the person who catches feelings when someone says anything negative against you.  Winners take the hate and use it to win more.  The tough part about it all is that losing is inevitable.  It's going to happen to everyone.  The difference is that some players lose classy and respect the other team for winner, while others can't accept the loss and move on.  So I may not feel like I learn anything from losing, but I guess I can learn something.  I can learn what players lost who will someday be a winner and I learn what players will continually be losers.

There's been a lot of debate in the past few weeks about teams benching players and how it's unfair to the fans and to the competitiveness of the sport to bench players for whatever reason there is.  The biggest controversy was the Indianapolis Colts benching their starters in the 3rd quarter against the New York Jets.  On one side we had the people complaining that the Colts could've achieved history, that they were losing their edge by doing so, that the fans shouldn't be succumed to watching a half ass performance, that it was just unfair to the game.  The other side of the ladder rationalized what they were doing by saying that they were only preparing themselves for the ultimate goal of a Super Bowl championship, that they needed to rest their players, that they earned the right to do whatever they wanted, and that they don't owe anyone anything and should do what's in their best interest.

My take on what the Colts should've done is this.  There's no such thing as perfection.  One person's perception of perfection is different than another person's perception of it.  The Colts could've achieved the 19-0 season and would've been placed on a pedestal, but for how long?  The next thing we know we would have a team that blows everyone out and runs the gauntlet easily and now they're considered the best.  Then we have a change in the NFL where games are increased to eighteen a year and someone goes 21-0 and now they're the best.  It's a never ending road to find perfection  so I don't think it matters either way what their decision is.  All of that doesn't matter though.  What I think is ridiculous it's acceptable for a team that has wrapped up the division to bench players, but it isn't okay for teams that are completely out of the race to bench players.  I guess this is just the hypocrisy of benching players.

Everyone thinks it's unfair to lose on purpose, but when you look at the whole picture, is it really that bad?  I just explained above how people justify for the winning teams.  Now I'm going to justify it for the losing teams.  Sports are a game and sports are a business.  In both aspects it makes sense for losing teams, that have no chance of the playoffs, to bench players, and even intentionally lose the game.  First of all the game aspect.  Every game has strategy involved.  There's no right and wrong strategy; there's only strategy that works and strategy that doesn't.  Each team should be able to decide their own strategy and sometimes it may work and sometimes it won't.  If a team is not going to make the playoffs then they should do what is in their best interest.  Benching players that could become injured is in their best interest.  Losing games to better themselves for draft pick position is in their best interest.  Just like the teams that win the division earn the right to decide, the teams that are horrible have also, in their own sort of way, earned the right to decide.

On the business side of things there are plenty of variables that go into the decision to tank the season or night.  Businesses are about making money, but you're not going to achieve that without bringing fans in.  Tanking the season isn't really going to hurt your fan base.  You're already losing consistently and playing to lose won't hurt you profit wise.  By positioning yourself to obtain a top draft pick you are actually getting the fan base more excited to see a star player and probably making your team better.  You will also have to pay that player more so it could also cost you financially.

The business side is much harder then the strategy side due to the fact that every decision will be effecting one person negatively and one person positively.  Strategy wise it works.  The season doesn't matter and you will be improving your team for the future.  This is the dilemma that teams should have the power to have, but instead we consider unmoral to lose on purpose.  Maybe we just don't analyze the situations from all sides.  When teams win and they bench players we consider it smart; teams that are bad and bench players are looked at as cheaters and bigger losers.  Maybe that's the problem with losing teams.  They're too scared to do what is actually right for the team because it looks bad so they continually keep doing the wrong thing.  Either way, we're all hypocrites towards the situation.