For the past few months, I have been thinking about writing a post about the NBA MVP Award, Derrick Rose and LeBron James. Only I didn’t know how to write it properly, didn’t have the proper fuel, and my biases got in the way.

Eventually, I gave up the notion. I couldn’t do it for the aforementioned reasons, and now I’ve read something by my favorite sports writer in the planet that sums up every single tiny bit of how I felt.

Reading it astounded me. I was thrilled that I had the same mindset as the great Joe Posnanski. I was thrilled that I am now able to share these feelings I have with the rest of the world. And I was a little bit disappointed, because now I simply have to say: “Hey, read this,” instead of writing it myself.

It’s such a good post and I couldn’t agree with it more. Please read it, and if you disagree with what Posnanski has to say, I really, REALLY want to know why.

Here it is. Click this.

“The bottom line is the better team won.”

“This is why he’s the MVP.”

“A win is a win.”

Wow. What a finish to the first NBA Playoffs game of the year, and the first playoff game in what is expected to be the anointment of Derrick Rose as a championship-caliber closer.

It’s games like this that bring out cliches from fans like you read above. It also brings out quotes like “That would’ve been impressive if it weren’t the Pacers,” and “Congrats, Bulls. It took you until the last minute to beat a sub-.500 team.” (Both quotes I read from non-Bulls fans immediately after the game finished.

The crazy thing? Both lines of thinking are absolutely correct. The cliches, as bland and uninventive as they may be, completely fit the situation. The Bulls are young, unproven and still getting their feet wet as playoff favorites. In many ways, squeaking out a win against a clearly inferior team playing its best basketball imaginable will be great in the long run.

Games like this will be popping up all playoffs long, and will happen more frequently the farther the Bulls make it.

So experiencing a test like this, where the Bulls are playing as poorly as we’ve seen practically all season, is great for the future. The Bulls got a crash course in playoff basketball and came up aces.

The flip side is correct as well. It is absolutely worrisome that Carlos Boozer was a liability not just in the fourth quarter, but throughout the entire game. He had more fouls than rebounds and continuously let Tyler Hansbrough knock down open jumpers.

Quick side tangent: More than any other college basketball player in my lifetime, I HATED Hansbrough when he was at North Carolina. More than ANYONE. I can’t really explain irrational sports hatred, but I couldn’t stand him. When he left North Carolina and was drafted by the Pacers, I was pleased because I was fairly confident that Hansbrough would never be relevant in my life again.

So thank you, Carlos Boozer, for bringing back haunting memories of “Psycho T.”

Anyway, Boozer’s lack of rebounding and defense is absolutely room for concern. Not that it’s anything new. Fans have known all season that he’s a putrid defensive player and streaky rebounder, but we can live with it when he’s scoring, which is something he wasn’t doing Saturday.

Likewise, Rose shouldn’t have to score nearly 40 points every game for the Bulls to win. Luol Deng and others absolutely have to show up. Deng was having troubles all game, and everyone on the second unit, particularly Kyle Korver and C.J. Watson, seemed terrified to take a shot.

That. Can’t. Happen.

I’m also wondering where Omer Asik went. Maybe I missed something and he got hurt or something, but he played three early minutes and than his second unit spot was filled by Kurt Thomas. Now, I have no problem with Thomas, but Tom Thibodeau said all season that he didn’t want to mess with his second unit of Watson-Korver-Gibson-Asik, yet when they entered the game, he was nowhere to be found. There has to be something more to that.

In the end, it didn’t matter, nor did any of the Bulls’ deficiencies. The bottom line is they won the game (yes, another cliche), and protected home-court advantage.

Is there reason to worry? Absolutely.

Should we expect things to get better?

Absolutely.

Look, the Canucks are really, really good. Everybody knew that coming in. It’s also possible that this Canucks team is more confident than the team the Blackhawks dismantled the past two seasons. That factor is what should be terrifying to Hawks fans, given that there is no question the Canucks are the more talented team this season.

The frustrating aspect of last night’s game is that the Hawks had an abundance of chances. It seemed like the Hawks ran their offense quite well, giving themselves opportunity after opportunity to sneak one past Bob Luongo. But each occasion either resulted in a near-miss – a puck just out of the reach of someone’s stick like with Marian Hossa on the breakaway – or Luongo standing on his head to make a great save.

Defensively, the Canucks showed that speed kills. Duncan Keith had a mediocre regular season by most accounts and the Canuck forwards were just flat out faster than him, as well as the rest of the Hawks’ defenders. Too many times did we see the Canucks dump the puck into the Hawks zone only to outhustle Keith & Co. and regain control. It was yet another frustrating sight.

However, what makes the offensive missed chances and the defensive frustration easier to take is the fact that those factors mean Game 2 can’t possibly go the same way. (At least that’s what I’m going to keep telling myself).

I’m not going to sit here and say that Luongo can’t possibly be as good in Game 2 as he was in Game 1. The fact of the matter is that he can. Luongo is one of the best goaltenders in the league and we see ALL THE TIME goalies put together spectacular runs in the playoffs. How many times last year do you think opposing team’s fans said there is no way Antti Niemi can play that good again? Probably a lot. Luongo could easily just go nuts this series and completely shut down the Hawks.

The optimism I still have stems from the offensive chances. While Luongo was good, there were opportunities where he was either A) Out of position or B) The Hawks had a really good sequence that left the goal open. Those opportunities will present themselves a couple of times every game and I find it hard to believe the Hawks will continue to miss them game after game.

Game 1 was basically a worst-case scenario for the Hawks. The Canucks totally outplayed them, gained momentum and it gave the Sedin twins and Luongo confidence that they can beat this Hawks team. But remember, the Canucks took Game 1 last year, too.

So maybe my optimism is ridiculous, biased fan talk, and there’s still a good chance the Canucks just continue skating circles around the Hawks and win the series in 4 or 5 games. But one game is a small sample, and the series isn’t even close to over yet. I’m not giving up yet, but talk to me after Game 2.

But while a lot of people are talking the talk about the fact that the Blackhawks stand more than a chance, as I learned, very few are actually walking the walk. I searched around the internet a bit to look at how the many hockey experts around a variety of outlets are predictions the Vancouver-Chicago series to play out.

But first, a rant about my annoyance with the combination is sports, the internet and writing.

While doing research for this post, I did a simple Google search of “Stanley Cup playoff predictions.” Tons of articles came up and I scrolled through the first few pages, noticing a certain trend. At LEAST 75 percent of the articles that came up were written for the ever-popular sports writing fan outlet Bleacher Report.

You may or may not know this, but Bleacher Report is a site that allows anybody and their brother to sign up, write their sports writing “articles” and have them pimped out to the rest of the cyberverse. I had an account once upon a time, when I was in junior college looking to get my feet wet. But what bugs me about Bleacher Report is that it presents its articles like they are written by established professionals. You can achieve titles like “Featured Columnist” by getting so many article views, and somehow the numerous “articles” written by the random fans who sign up for the site show up at the forefront of Google searches. They even go so far as to post “job openings” on sites like JournalismJobs.com looking for “sports writing interns,” which basically just means they’re asking you to come to their site and sign up for an account.

My problems with Bleacher Report are well-documented on many levels, but what really bugs me is that, if I didn’t know what Bleacher Report was before my search, I very well could have clicked on any number of those links and taken what I read as being written by a real, established professional. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to use outlets such as Bleacher Report to express their opinions. That’s great, and it’s a nice way for young writers to get their feet wet and hone their writing skills. It’s the presentation of being professional that bugs me. That’s all I’m saying. And no, this rant had nothing to do with my predictions. I just had to get it off of my chest. Thank you.

Here’s a rundown of some of the predictions I found throughout my search. (Note: The Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times have not had its writers make predictions yet. As least not ones that I could find.

Over at the worldwide leader, I found three of its most-read pundits make predictions. Barry Melrose, who is their senior analyst and appears solely in front of the camera, picked the Canucks to win the series, stating: “I don’t think they have much of a chance” when asked about the Blackhawks. He did not say how many games he thought the series would go, but also predicted in the same segment that the Canucks would come out of the Western Conference. It should be noted that before last year’s playoffs began, Melrose predicted Chicago over Philadelphia in the Stanley Cup Finals.

E.J. Hradek, ESPN.com’s hockey insider, also predicted Vancouver in 6, stating: “Right now, the Hawks seem like a tired, banged-up group. The Canucks, on the other hand, seem fresh and ready for the Cup challenge.”

John Buccigross, a Sportscenter anchor who writes about hockey for ESPN.com, made it a perfect 3-for-3 from the worldwide leader, picking the Canucks in 6, stating that the Blackhawks have been “the shopping cart with that one wobbly wheel all year long.”

One interesting take I read was over at Hockey Prospectus. They calculate odds “based on teams’ records and goal differential – excluding shootout results – factoring in the difficulty of opponents they faced over the regular season and giving an increased weight to more recent results, which better reflect a teams’ current strengths.”

The Prospectus didn’t make any specific predictions on the series, but gave percentage odds for each round. They gave the Blackhawks a 36 percent chance of winning their first round series. They went further, saying the Blackhawks had a 17.7 percent chance of winning in the second round, a 9.4 percent chance to reach the Stanley Cup Finals and a 4.9 percent chance to win the whole thing.

Surprisingly, out of the 16 playoff teams the Blackhawks had the eighth best chance of winning the Stanley Cup (Vancouver was No. 1), and they wrote that the winner of the Vancouver-Chicago series has a 37.6 percent chance to win the title.

I don’t know anything about those calculations other than that they probably use a crazy amount of math and I semi-trust them solely because I’ve read a lot of Baseball Prospectus’ stuff and it’s pretty good. It’s just an interesting way to look at things.

Some other random predictions I found:

Dan Di Sciullo, a hockey columnist for The Sports Network writing in the Toronto Sun, predicted Vancouver in 6. Mark Whicker, a hockey columnist for The Orange County Register, predicted Vancouver in 5, and Cam Cole, the Vancouver Sun’s hockey columnist, said Vancouver in 7.

Over at NHL.com a staff of 7 made their first round predictions. Of the 7, three of them (Mike G. Morreale, Corey Masisak and Shawn P. Roarke) picked the Blackhawks to upset the Canucks.

What does all of this mean? Why, nothing, of course. It’s just interesting to look at predictions from people who clearly work in and cover hockey for a living. It’s also interesting to see that, while many are saying they wouldn’t be surprised to see a Blackhawks upset, few are actually predicting it to happen.

I don’t consider myself a “Chicago sports fan” it just so happens that a majority of my favorite teams play in Chicago.

That’s a fact not a lot of people understand. Even in Rockford, where I grew up (which is NOT a suburb of Chicago), the general population of sports fans considered themselves to be fans of Chicago sports and that was basically it. There’s even a restaurant in the city named “Old Chicago” that is decked out in Chicago sports memorabilia.

So most of the people I grew up around were Chicago sports fans. It was either Bears-Cubs-Bulls-Blackhawks, Bears-White Sox-Bulls-Blackhawks, or Bears-Cubs-Bulls-Idontcare (not a lot of hockey fans in the area until recently).

But, as I said before, I’m not a Chicago sports fan. I realized this even more a few months ago when I argued with one of the aforementioned Chicago sports fans over whether it was OK or not for Jack Skille to announce he was rooting for the Green Bay Packers in the NFC Championship game.

Skille was more in Madison, Wis., and naturally grew up a Packers fan. The fan I argued with said that Skille should want the Bears to win because “the city” was behind the Blackhawks during their Stanley Cup run so he should do the same for the Bears’ Super Bowl run. I thought that was silly because A) It would make him a bad fan for neglecting the team he grew up rooting for and B) Who cares if he lives and works in Chicago? (People forget that what he does is a job).

The points ended up becoming moot. The Bears lost the game and Skille got traded (For reasons other than the fact that he liked the Packers, one would assume. Namely, he wasn’t very good at hockey).

But that disagreement made me realize I think quite a bit differently than city fans. There are quite a few people who think you should root for Chicago sports to win regardless, even some who think Cubs fans should root for the White Sox in the World Series and vice-versa. The idea of that seems unfathomable to me.

The reason I’m bringing all of this up is because, growing up and living around Chicago sports fans, I can’t imagine the excitement that is being felt right now. Let’s break things down:

1. The Chicago Bears just completed an incredible season in which they came within one game of reaching the Super Bowl.

2. The Chicago Blackhawks are (barely) back in the playoffs just 10 months after setting the city on fire by winning the Stanley Cup.

3. The Chicago Bulls are the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference, have the presumptive NBA MVP and have suddenly become a heavy favorite to at LEAST make it to the NBA Finals.

4. The Cubs and White Sox, regardless of expectations, are playing at the beginning of the season with hope of making the playoffs.

OK, that last one wasn’t as exciting, but you get my point.

As I said before, I’m not a Chicago sports fan. The reason is because I’m a Green Bay Packers fan and I hate the Cubs with every fiber of my being. But I’m pretty darn close to one, and I can sense that the excitement level that city and its fans are feeling right now might be at an all-time high, or at least as high as it’s been in the past 20 years.

Of course, most of this excitement is because of the Bulls and Blackhawks, and upon doing some actual research, I was surprised to see that over the past 20 years, the two teams have actually been in the playoffs together twice, including the past two years.

However, a closer look shows that there was not a single time in those nine instances where BOTH teams had a ton of optimism. The 1991-92 season probably came the closest since the ‘Hawks made a surprising run to the NBA Finals while Jordan & Co., were tearing things up, but from what I understand, there was little optimism the ‘Hawks would stand a chance against Mario Lemieux and the Pittsburgh Penguins.

So why am I bringing this all up? Isn’t this year basically the same as those other nine instances. We have the favorite (Bulls), and the team that stumbled into the playoffs and many people expect to get bounced early (Blackhawks). Last year, those roles were reversed.

But don’t let seedings fool you. The Blackhawks may have snuck in and face a tough challenge with Vancouver, but there’s plenty of optimism, based around last year’s run and general playoff dominance against the Canucks, that another long run could be had.

Likewise, hockey is the one sport where seedings are basically irrelevant. Eight seeds beat one seeds WAY more often than in basketball. In fact, since the current playoff format was adopted in 1994, nine 8 seeds have won in the first round, that’s basically one-third of the time.

It happened last year, and last season’s Eastern Conference Finals even featured the 8 seed (Montreal) vs. the 7 seed (Philadelphia).

Chicago fans know this and they’re perhaps more confident than any 8 seed’s fans have ever been. But it’s with good reason. They know the history.

The Madhouse on Madison is going to be absolutely rocking over the next two months, as both teams can hopefully make long runs. It’s one of those rare instances I’ve written about so many times that we need to enjoy. Optimism in Chicago is unthinkably high, and we may be experiencing a sports high in this city that will never happen again.

Can you imagine what the United Center will be like if it’s hosting NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals games around virtually the same time?

I can. And I can’t wait to see if it happens.

After a month-long hiatus in which I know all of you have been champing at the bit to get to read more of my blog posts, I’m back, but I’m not quite sure what with yet.

The greatest time of the year is here. March Madness is wrapping up and it’s opening day, which means I get to take part in my annual joy of watching Cubs fans full of optimism.

In reality, I’m going to be blogging about baseball quite a bit this season. I just haven’t quite figured out how yet. I want to be able to do a weekly, quick-hit type of format like I did for football season, but it’s tougher for baseball since the schedules aren’t in any way similar.

Anyway, I’m going to be working on that so you can expect quite a bit more from me in coming weeks. But what this blog is for is my annual season predictions. Don’t worry, it’s not going to be a billion words breaking down every single facet of every single team. I’m not smart enough, nor do I have the time, but I plan to do a quick paragraph on each division, followed by my predicted order of finish. At the end, I’ll make awards and playoff predictions. Sound good? Good. Let’s get started.

American League East

I don’t know if you’re going to be too surprised by any of my predictions, but if you’re hoping for some, you won’t get any out of the AL East. The Boston Red Sox are the favorites, they’re the most improved team and there’s good reason for both. A lot of times, you see big-name moves disappoint, I don’t think that will be the case here. I think Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford are both poised for gigantic years. I also think the Yankees will be right there, and that the Rays won’t be nearly as bad as some predict.  As a whole, this division might be stronger than it’s ever been (which is really, really scary)  as both the Toronto Blue Jays and Baltimore Orioles finally seem to be getting together some semblance of competitive teams.

1. Red Sox
2. Yankees
3. Rays
4. Orioles
5. Blue Jays

American League Central

Here’s where things get tricky for me. Every single season, I talk myself into why the White Sox are going to win the AL Central and be World Series favorites. I’ve done it again this year, only this time the pundits agree (for the most part). Look, on paper the White Sox are the best team in the AL Central. Their starting rotation has the most upside. Their bullpen looks to be the most dominant. Their offense looks to be very powerful and have a good blend of power, speed and average. What’s not to like? The Twins, however, always seem to get it done. Every year, people write them off and every year, they figure out how to win the division, scrapping together nobodies like Danny Valencia and making it work. The Tigers? I’m not sold. I like their rotation more than others, but think that beyond Miguel Cabrera, the offense just doesn’t have enough consistency. What it boils down to for me is that, until they’re proven to fall, the Twins are the pick. And if you think this is some sort of elaborate reverse jinx, well, you know me too well.

1. Twins
2. White Sox
3. Tigers
4. Royals
5. Indians

American League West

One of the things I don’t understand about the common thought this offseason is that the Rangers are suddenly not the class of the AL West because they lost Cliff Lee. If I remember correctly, the Rangers were still winning the division before making that trade, and the likes of C.J. Wilson and Colby Lewis aren’t half bad. Would they have made the World Series without Lee? That seems unlikely, but given the Angels’ downward progression, as well as the uncertainty in Oakland and disaster in Seattle, I don’t see any way they don’t still dominate this division. The Athletics are the sleeper, however. Their pitching staff is young and Billy Beane always seems to know what he’s doing in that department, but the key for them will be the health of their young arms and the consistency of their offense. I think the A’s will be mightily improved, and will surpass the Angels for second place in the division, but as I said, it’s all Rangers here.

1. Rangers
2. Athletics
3. Angels
4. Mariners

National League East

Here’s where I’m prepared to go out on a limb a little bit. Everyone knows what the Phillies did. They have that vaunted starting rotation and an offense that has gotten it done over the past several years. Here’s my counterpoint (albeit a possibly weak one): Every single member of the Phillies’ Big Four has an injury history. While they vary, each one has been unrealistically healthy over the past few years, particularly Roy Halladay, who people forget was a serious injury risk for several years in Toronto. Likewise, they’re all (except Cole Hamels) aging. I’d be surprised if all four of them stay healthy and effective for the long haul. Additionally, the offense is due for a MAJOR step back. Chase Utley might not play at all this season, and if he does, how much? Jimmy Rollins hasn’t been the same for a few years. Can we expect big years again out of Shane Victorino and Carlos Ruiz? And who the hell is going to protect Ryan Howard? Maybe I’m reaching, but I’m just not sold on the Phillies. Which is why my one big upset in my predictions is taking the Braves to win the East. I’ll get into why in a later post, as I’ve spent far too many words on the Phillies already.

1. Braves
2. Phillies
3. Marlins
4. Mets
5. Nationals

National League Central

Every year, this is one of my favorite divisions to breakdown because I get to take a look at the Cubbies and their woes. Last year, I picked them to do far better than they did (I think I had them finishing second in the Wild Card). This year, it’s less fun because there is little to no optimism, and with good reason. This division is probably the most wide open, and not because there are a lot of good teams, but because there is a lot of mediocrity. The Brewers are improved, the Reds are maybe as good as they were last year, and the Cardinals have little optimism because of the injury to Adam Wainwright. Like many others, I like the Brewers. Not just because of Zack Greinke, but because the back end of their rotation is improved and the offense is getting more mature. Plus, Prince Fielder playing for a contract could be a monster. I expect a drop off from the Reds, mainly because I don’t think they can expect Joey Votto to repeat last year’s production and their rotation scares the crap out of me health-wise. I also wouldn’t discount the Cardinals, if only because Tony La Russa always seems to scrap together a contender, a lot like the Twins, but I still don’t see them getting past Milwaukee or Cincinnati.

1. Brewers
2. Reds
3. Cardinals
4. Astros
5. Cubs
6. Pirates

National League West

Last year, I hit a home run with this division by picking the Giants when few others were. This year, I still like the Giants a lot but think the Rockies have improved enough to take over. If there’s a sleeper team somewhere, however, it’s the Diamondbacks. I love what Kirk Gibson is doing and think they have a very good young pitching staff. If they can stay healthy and the young guys can improve, they could be this year’s Padres. That’s just a warning, but I still don’t have the balls to pick them.

1. Rockies
2. Giants
3. Diamondbacks
4. Dodgers
5. Padres

Playoffs

American League: 1. Red Sox, 2. Rangers, 3. Twins, WC: Yankees.

National League: 1. Rockies, 2. Braves, 3. Brewers, WC: Phillies.

Divisional Playoffs

AL: Red Sox over Twins; Rangers over Yankees.

NL: Phillies over Rockies; Braves over Brewers.

Championship Series

AL: Red Sox over Rangers.

NL: Braves over Phillies.

World Series: Red Sox over Braves in six games

Awards

AL MVP: Adrian Gonzalez

NL MVP: Albert Pujols

AL Cy Young: Jon Lester

NL Cy Young: Tim Lincecum

AL Rookie of the Year: Jeremy Pineida (Mariners)

NL Rookie of the Year: Freddie Freeman (Braves)

I stole this from Google Images

I went into this year’s Academy Awards season with lofty goals. Having more time on my hands than in the past, my goal was to watch every single of the “big six” award films before the awards show aired.

In the past, my buddy Ben and I would set a goal of seeing all five Best Picture nominees prior to the Oscar’s. Of course, seeing those five (and now 10) usually meant you saw most of the nominees in the other “big six” categories (The four acting categories and Best Director) as well.

We usually achieved that goal. Often times, completing this task meant taking an hour and a half trip to Chicago a few times to some Indie theater that was showing “The Reader” or “Letters From Iwo Jima,” but it was usually done pretty easily.

Now that he’s in Ohio and I’m in Decatur (and previously Pittsfield and Charleston), achieving that goal together is no longer possible. But, at the same time, not being in school anymore, coupled with looking for ways to keep my blog going after football season, made me want to be able to blog about all six categories with as much knowledge as possible.

That meant seeing all the films and immersing myself with reviews so I could A) Give my take on each category, and B) Have the best possible guess at what the Academy was going to do.

I planned to use separate blog posts for each category and go in-depth. It seemed very achievable, and I was pretty excited about the possibilities. After all, my 24-hour movie marathon post from nearly two years ago generated more views than any post I’ve ever done for this blog. People clearly like reading what I have to say about film more than anything else.

Then, I got a new job. Suddenly, I was spending my time searching for apartments and moving an hour and a half east. Then, I spent my time unpacking, getting acquainted with my new job and adjusting to a new work schedule.

The good news is that I was able to see nearly all the films I set out to watch (“Biutiful,” starring Best Actor nominee Javier Bardem was unattainable). But the bad news is I simply ran out of time to blog.

I don’t know if any of you read my posts detailing the Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, or Best Actress races, but I admit to being quite disappointed with how they turned out. They’re short, uninteresting and lacking any depth. I simply didn’t have the time to devote the time and energy I had initially planned into any of them. I’m conceding defeat in my attempt at this goal. I’m sorry.

So what is this post for? First, it’s to explain what I just said. Secondly, I’ve decided to encapsule everything I thought about this year’s nominees into one big post. I’m still going to tell you who I think SHOULD win and WILL win each category, but in a slightly different format.

So what did I think about this awards season? I think it lacked drama.

No, I don’t mean that in a theatrical sense. There was plenty of drama in the films we watched in 2010. What I mean is that this year’s Academy Awards is going to go as scripted.

Most years, you see a few surprised (“Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain,” Denzel Washington for “Training Day” over Russell Crowe for “The Insider” and Will Smith for “Ali,” and Marion Cotillard for “La Vie En Rose” over Ellen Page for “Juno,” at least in some people’s eyes, just to name a few).

This year? I don’t see any viable candidates. At least in the acting categories, I simply don’t see any way Colin Firth, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale and Melissa Leo don’t come home with Oscar’s. Not just because I think they’ll all win, but because of what I’ve read. There simply don’t seem to be any performances that come close to those four.

Here’s a short breakdown of each four, followed by the same for Best Director and Best Picture

Best Supporting Actress

Melissa Leo in "The Fighter"

In a movie chock full of good acting performances, Leo steals each scene she’s in, even those she shares with the equally incredible Christian Bale. She’s expectedly swept all the smaller awards leading up to the Oscar’s, and those who think her being nominated with co-star Amy Adams will hurt her couldn’t be more wrong. Quite frankly, I was a little surprised Adams was even nominated, as much as that pains me to write because I’m a HUGE Adams fan. If I have to throw out an upset pick, I’ll go with Helena Bonham Carter, simply because the Academy LOVES films like “The King’s Speech” (more on this in a bit).

Should Win – Leo.

Will Win – Leo.

Collin’s Nominee Rankings

1. Melissa Leo for “The Fighter”
2. Helena Bonham Carter for “The King’s Speech”
3. Hailee Steinfeld for “True Grit”
4. Amy Adams for “The Fighter”
5. Jackie Weaver for “Animal Kingdom”

Best Supporting Actor

Christian Bale in "The Fighter"

As I wrote previously, if you had no idea who Christian Bale was and saw “Dark Knight” and “The Fighter” back to back, you’d be hard pressed to tell that Bale’s characters in each movie was played by the same guy. He’s that good in “The Fighter.” Who’s closest to Bale in this category? In my eyes, it’s John Hawkes for “Winter’s Bone.” In the Academy’s eyes, the best chance for an upset would probably be Geoffrey Rush for “The King’s Speech.”

Should Win – Bale.

Will Win – Bale.

Collin’s Nominee Rankings

1. Christian Bale for “The Fighter”
2. John Hawkes for “Winter’s Bone”
3. Geoffrey Rush for “The King’s Speech”
4. Jeremy Renner for “The Town
5. Mark Ruffalo for “The Kids Are All Right”

Best Actress

Natalie Portman in "Black Swan"

This is the biggest slam dunk of this year’s show. As I wrote here, I really, really liked Natalie Portman’s performance in “Black Swan” and think it’s up there with Daniel Day-Lewis’ “There Will Be Blood” performance as best of the past ten years. It would be an absolutely crime if she didn’t win this award, but if I had to chose a runner up, I’d go with Michelle Williams for her role in the incredibly underrated “Blue Valentine.” I think she’d have a good chance to win if Portman wasn’t there.

Should Win – Portman.

Will Win – Portman.

Collin’s Nominee Rankings

1. Natalie Portman for “Black Swan”
2. Michelle Williams for “Blue Valentine”
3. Nicole Kidman for “Rabbit Hole”
4. Jennifer Lawrence for “Winter’s Bone”
5. Annette Bening for “The Kids Are All Right”

Best Actor

Colin Firth in "The King's Speech"

While I think this year’s acting categories are predictable, if one category has to spring an upset, it’s here. Colin Firth is the favorite and there’s good reason. But if the Academy choses a surprise, I could definitely see James Franco for “127 Hours” (reasonably so) or Jessie Eisenberg for “The Social Network” (not reasonably so) take home the award. Again, I haven’t seen “Biutiful” yet, so I can’t fully scrutinize this category, but I think Firth is a pretty safe bet here.

Should Win – Firth.

Will Win – Firth.

Collin’s Nominee Rankings

1. Colin Firth for “The King’s Speech”
2. James Franco for “127 Hours”
3. Jeff Bridges for “True Grit”
4. Jessie Eisenberg for “The Social Network”
Inc. Javier Bardem for “Biutiful”

Best Director

Here’s where things get a little interesting. I could make legitimate arguments for any of the five nominees here, and in my eyes, who wins is kind of a toss-up. However, I’m pretty confident the Academy is going with David Fincher and I can’t say I completely blame them. While I think “The Social Network” is slightly overrated, I can’t discredit the job Fincher does with a storyline that seemed, on the surface, to be completely uninteresting as a film. So, again, I’m agreeing with the Academy.

Should Win – Fincher.

Will Win – Fincher.

Collin’s Nominee Rankings

1. David Fincher for “The Social Network”
2. David O. Russell for “The Fighter”
3. Tom Hooper for “The King’s Speech”
4. Joel & Ethan Coen for “True Grit”
5. Darren Aronofsky for “Black Swan”

Best Picture

"The Social Network"

If this year’s acting categories are predictable, the Best Picture category is anything but. “The Social Network” started out as a pretty heavy favorite, but “The King’s Speech” has come on strong after sweeping the BAFTA’s, and is now the odds on favorite to win. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it win, either. As this column by an esteemed film critic from my alma mater details, the Academy does love English films, and “The King’s Speech fits the bill pretty well.

I’ve been pretty torn over what I think should win Best Picture, and I think it’s because there wasn’t any truly great films this year. Don’t get me wrong, there were a lot of good ones — I can’t really argue with any of the 10 nominations — but none of these nominations stood out and made me say “Holy crap. That movie is an absolute classic,” like I did about “Crash,” “No Country For Old Men” or “There Will Be Blood.”

I think my favorite film of te year was “Blue Valentine.” Why? It was full of the subtle emotion that is so lacking in film nowadays. The movie chronicles the relationship of Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling’s characters, flashing back and forth between how they felt about each other when they met to the crossroads they’ve found their relationship in. Even the dramatic moments don’t feel dramatic. They just feel real. You’re embarrassed for Gosling’s character when he drunkenly comes in the doctor’s office.

“Blue Valentine” doesn’t use any breakthrough techniques like “Inception,” it doesn’t touch on current events like “The Social Network” and it isn’t a technically sound period piece like “The King’s Speech.” It’s just a really good film about real life and the struggles people go through in relationships. If I had a Best Picture pick out of any film I saw from 2010, that would be it.

Out of the actual nominees, I think I have to give the slight edge to “127 Hours.” I loved the fact that Danny Boyle could keep you interested in a single person in a single, secluded setting for 90 minutes. There was scarcely a flashback, you simply say James Franco’s character going through something that was utterly unimaginable for any other human being. You can only shoot a guy stuck in a crevice so many ways, but Boyle found every way he could and kept the film moving at a stunning pace. It’s a truly unique piece of art.

But “127 Hours” won’t win. At least I don’t think it will. As I mentioned before, the Academy likes surprises. As far as Best Pictures go, the last big surprise was “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain” (which I predicted), but I don’t see anything like that happening this year. Some might call “The Social Network” over “The King’s Speech” an upset, but I think the award is a toss up between the two and I’m fairly confident the Academy will go with “The Social Network.”

Should Win – 127 Hours.

Will Win – The Social Network.

Collin’s Nominee Rankings

1. 127 Hours
2. True Grit
3. The Social Network
4. The Fighter
5. The King’s Speech
6. Inception
7. Black Swan
8. The Kids Are All Right
9. Toy Story 3
10. Winter’s Bone

The Candidates

Amy Adams - The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech

Melissa Leo - The Fighter

Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit

Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom

The Favorite

Melissa Leo.

Why? – Leo has already won the Golden Globe and Screen Actor’s Guild Award for Best Supporting Actress. She’s currently listed at 4/11 odds to win the award.

The Darkhorse

Helena Bonham Carter.

Why? – The King’s Speech has been cleaning up at award shows over the last few months, and the Academy Awards has been known to let one film clean up in any given year. Couple that with her win at the BAFTAs last week, and Bonham Carter likely has the best opportunity to dethrone Leo.

Perplexing nomination

Jacki Weaver.

Why? – The problem with Weaver’s nomination for “Animal Kingdom” is that at no point during the film does she stand out. She has a very difficult job playing the mother/grandmother to a family of criminals, trying to keep them in check and getting them out of trouble. But at no point during the film did I look at Weaver on screen and say “Wow. She’s really stealing the show here.” In fact, not being familiar with Weaver or the film prior to viewing, I wondered if the actress I was seeing on screen was, in fact, Weaver, or if I was waiting for another actress to be introduced. This spot would have been better fit for Mila Kunis for “Black Swan.”

Collin’s Pick

Melissa Leo.

Why? – It was a relatively weak year for the supporting actress category, but Leo stands out above them all. I give Adams and Weaver zero chance of sniffing this award, and while Steinfeld is a nice story, the Academy rarely (if ever) awards the under-18 nominees. (See: Abigail Breslin). That leaves Leo and Bonham Carter. While I was dumbfounded to see that Bonham Carter can actually act in a film NOT directed by her husband (I know she did “Fight Club” but that seems like eons ago at this point), her performance still doesn’t stack up to Leo, who dominated her short time on the screen as the overbearing mother of Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale.

The toughest part about her performance is that it was a hard sell. She’s trying to control Wahlberg’s character in a way the audience knows isn’t right, and even most of the characters surrounding her can see isn’t right, but she’s forceful and demanding and completely takes over the screen when she’s on it. She’s the obvious choice.

Who the Academy will choose – Melissa Leo.