Injustice!

In the NBA, the two coaches whose teams have the best records in their conferences as of January 31, receive the honor of coaching that year's All-Star teams.  However, if the coach of a team with the best record coached the previous year's All-Stars, then the honor goes to the coach with the second-best record.  This is known as the "Riley Rule," after Pat Riley, who, when he coached the Los Angeles Lakers in the 1980s, was so successful that he coached the Western Conference All-Star team something like 12 times in eight years.

The Academy of Television Honchos (or whatever it's called) needs to adopt a Riley Rule for the Emmys.

Look, I like "Mad Men" as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Matthew Weiner), but for it to be named Best Drama four years in a row is silly--well, silly and perfectly logical at the same time.  If "Mad Men" was the best drama LAST year, why WOULDN'T it be the best drama this year (barring some major shake-ups in the production personnel)?  Even allowing for the presence of new shows like "Boardwalk Empire" or "Game of Thrones," you have to figure that most people who voted for "Mad Men" last year will be inclined to vote for it again.  And obviously, they were.

There's nothing inherently WRONG with a show winning multiple times, but this certainly detracts from some of the drama.  And since the awards are largely meaningless anyway, what would it hurt to declare a show that wins the big prize one year ineligible for consideration the next?  The same rule should apply to actors and actresses, at least insofar as their being nominated for playing the same role.

Which brings me to Hugh Laurie.

As much as I love "Breaking Bad," I was kind of happy that this year, because of scheduling issues, it was ineligible for Emmy consideration.  The fact that Bryan Cranston was out of the running should have opened up the spot for the egregiously overlooked Oxonian to nab his first Emmy.  But he was snubbed again!

(DIGRESSION: I just checked the Emmy website to see who-all had beaten Hugh Laurie in the past.  I knew it was Cranston for the last three years--fair enough.  But before that he was beaten out twice--TWICE!--by James Spader for "Boston Legal."  Now, I've watched "Boston Legal"--well, one season of it at least.  And as mildly entertaining as it sometimes is, anyone who thinks James Spader does a better job than Hugh Laurie needs to have their critical license revoked. EOD)

Last night, Hugh Laurie lost out to Kyle Chandler.  Yeah, I don't know, either.

No, no. Kyle Chandler stars in the critically-acclaimed drama "Friday Night Lights."  I have never seen the show, but I have been told by numerous well-meaning tele-yentes that I should.  I probably will get around to it at some point.  I'm sure it's great.  I'm sure Kyle Chandler is great.  Doesn't matter.  Hugh Laurie does a better job.

Here's the thing: None of the other leading men in any of the other critically acclaimed dramas have to carry a show the way Hugh Laurie has to carry "House."  "Mad Men," "Boardwalk Empire," and "Game of Thrones," while primarily focusing on one central character, are basically ensemble pieces.  So were shows like "The Sopranos" or "The Wire."  Even "Breaking Bad" depends less on Bryan Cranston than "House" does on Hugh Laurie: Walter White is the main character, but there are major storylines revolving around Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) and Skyler White (Anna Gunn).

"House" on the other hand IS Dr. Gregory House.  None of the other characters matter except insofar as they provide foils to House.  His "team" is of such minor importance that after the 3rd season, the producers replaced them, primarily, we assume, to give House the opportunity to screw with a new bunch of victims.  Even the two other "major" characters, Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) and Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein) are eminently replaceable--just how replaceable will become this season when Edelstein will no longer be on the show.

More importantly, from an acting point of view, is the fact that Laurie not only carries the show, he carries it phenomenally well.  Along with the writers, he has created one of the great characters in TV history: the likely number-one answer to the eventual "Family Feud" question, "Name a fictional television doctor."  If you want proof of Laurie's greatness as an actor, check out the episode where House is in a psychiatric institution undergoing treatment for Vicodin addiction.  Towards the end of the show, the residents perform a talent show.  House, of course, wants no part of the festivities.  His annoying roommate, though, a wannabe rapper, gets flustered while performing and can't think of a rhyme.  House somewhat grudgingly shouts out a suggestion.  The rapper continues, and gets stuck again.  House helps again, a bit more readily.  This goes on, and eventually House ends up on stage with his roomie, happily rapping away.

Sounds nauseating, doesn't it?  But here's the thing: IT'S NOT!  Because Hugh Laurie never--never--forgets the essential nature of the character he's portraying.  Even when House is enjoying himself, having a rare moment of human connection, he is still the cynical, arrogant bastard we've all come to know and love.  He enjoys the moment, but we can see the hint of an eye-roll even when he's fully engaged.

The only leading man who comes close to occupying as central a position on his show as Hugh Laurie on "House" is Michael C. Hall of "Dexter."  But since "Dexter" is a thriller, it relies on plot to a much greater degree than "House," which is more of a character study.

Next year, Bryan Cranston will likely be nominated for his fourth emmy for "Breaking Bad."  For Hugh Laurie's sake, I hope the Academy considers a Riley Rule.