When I was six, I played soccer. My team stunk, but we always got a trophy just for participating.

That's where the Academy is headed now that it has announced that 10 movies will be in competition for best picture.

Don't like that analogy? OK, how's this -- the Academy is officially going the way of the Golden Globes. And that used to be blasphemy, heresy, whatever.

But by inviting more people to the party, AMPAS has diluted the value of getting a nomination, which is everything in Hollywood.

Ten movies? Are there really 10 movies every year that should get a best picture nomination?

Think about it ... For Your Consideration: "The Hangover."

Let's take 2008. The overall consensus is that "The Dark Knight" and "Wall-E" were reasonable contenders that missed the cut. So that takes the total to seven, along with "The Reader," "Benjamin Button," "Milk," "Frost/Nixon" and eventual winner "Slumdog Millionaire."

But really now, were there tons of people who were shocked, upset or angry over "The Visitor" not getting a nom? Or "The Wrestler"?

Over the years, the one constant at the Academy was its prestige and its appropriate arrogance. Five nominees in every category meant the contenders had be really good. That doesn't mean I liked them all, but five is a small lot.

Nominating everyone really waters that down.

There's no argument that the reasons seem like good ones on paper.

Why not make the industry happy? It would be wonderful to have the Pixar team in the mix for best picture ... as well as critically lauded tentpoles like "Star Trek" or a "Harry Potter" installment.

And the biggest reason of all is a valid one, since this is a business: Ratings have stunk, and this is a way to get more eyeballs.

But, mixing my years here, can you imagine a year in which "Schindler's List" goes up against "Knocked Up"?

That's not an unlikely possibility. A 10-movie list means well-reviewed things like "Wedding Crashers" could be a contender for Best Picture.

Say that out loud.

Look, isn't snubbing part of the fun? When "Dreamgirls" was "supposed" to be a guaranteed winner -- but didn't even get a nomination -- wasn't that part of the whole process?

Now the only thing to ponder will be ... who was number 11.

Ugh. 

As "Star Trek" becomes the first 2009 film to cross the $200 million mark at the domestic box office, it's worth remembering that just a few years ago, nobody wanted anything to do with the franchise.

And that Sam Raimi was once offered the gig to become its potential savior.

The film with the best summer legs so far -- it's now the top release of 2009 and only dropped 46 percent percent in its third week -- offers up a good ol' Hollywood lesson in patience, worry ... and corporate luck.

In 2005, Sumner Redstone announced his plans to split his conglomerate into two parts: Viacom, where Paramount would still reside, and CBS, to be run by Les Moonves and a unit that would eventually have its own film division.

The lawyers then came in and had to divvy up the assets. As expected, "Star Trek" landed at CBS, which had fathered the iconic series and seemed like the perfect place for it to land. (It still owns the TV and merchandising rights.)

Problem was, nobody there wanted to do anything new with it. UPN's "Star Trek: Enterprise" was, at the time, about to be canceled, and the most recent film version -- "Nemesis" -- had made a weak $43 million at the domestic box office.

In fact, all the movies seemed to have hit a peak. Throughout the '90s, the brand performed relatively consistently: "Star Trek: Generations" hit $118 million worldwide in 1994; "Star Trek: First Contact" reached $146 million in 1996; and two years later, "Star Trek: Insurrection's" tally was $112.5 million. Basically, domestic numbers were only so-so, and international was a non-factor.

So having established itself as one of the best brands in entertainment over the decades thanks to merchandising, multiple TV series and earlier film hits, "Star Trek" was going the wrong way. Moonves then became a team player, loaning "Star Trek" to Paramount and then president Gail Berman with one caveat: He gave them 18 months to make it.

Enter J.J. Abrams.

Berman started to think about the right person for the job. Abrams had signed an overall deal at the studio in July 2006; "Mission: Impossible III" was, surprisingly, a critical hit and still a moneymaker (though it led to the Redstone-Tom Cruise flap); "Lost" had become a major success for ABC; and people were talking about Abrams -- as they still are -- about becoming his generation's Steven Spielberg.

But when approached about "Star Trek," he first came on only to produce and supervise the screenplay, but never committed to direct. And he wasn't even that big of a fan: In a recent online interview with bild.com, Abrams admitted, "I don't know why, but I never got into it. I never accepted it the way friends of mine did. I always felt a little bit on the outside. But 'Star Wars' -- in 1977, I was 11 years old, and it just blew my head open. So, for me, 'Star Wars' was redefining and 'Star Trek' was a disconnect."

Abrams wasn't the only one with doubts. While his William Morris agent David Lonner steered him in the right direction, there were, according to multiple people in the Abrams camp, many at WMA that didn't want him anywhere near a stale property since he had become one of the hottest names in town.

What's more, there was -- like with any movie -- a wish list of possible directors. And at some point, Sam Raimi was actually offered the director's job, two other individuals close to the early Abrams negotiations said.

Raimi had breathed profitable life into Sony's "Spider-Man" franchise and knew how to bring a cultural relevance to his movies. But, the sources say, when the Abrams train built up a head of steam, the talks with Raimi officially ended.

Raimi's CAA representatives declined to comment.

NBC had a chance to knock it out of the park.

But instead, we got ... "Parenthood."

At Monday's "infront,"* the network unveiled its fall shows -- a list that would hopefully make us forget about last year's "hot prospects," mainly "Knight Rider" And "My Own Worst Enemy." A list that would hopefully make up for the horrendous "Kings."

No such luck.

Talk about the same ol' same ol'. "Parenthood" has great people in it (Peter Krause, Craig T. Nelson) and behind it (Imagine's Ron Howard and Brian Grazer) but is a total retread. Did we mention the movie came out in 1989? 

As "ER" fades into the sunset, there will be "Trauma," a medical drama about emergency-response teams from producer Peter Berg, and nurse POV entry "Mercy." Not one medical drama ... but two.

"Community" sounds most promising, as it has the feel of "The Office. " But that's what everyone said about returning show "Parks and Recreation."

None of this sounds groundbreaking in the least. But shouldn't it?

NBC has had a terrible year. The network commonly finishes fourth in the ratings. The latest example of its weekly problems: NBC was fourth in total viewers last Thursday night - once its night of dominance - just ahead of the CW.

To be fair, props are in order for the imminent Jay Leno experiment. While the decision to run his new talk show as a 10 pm strip irks everyone from scripted writers (fewer shows are hiring) to Conan O'Brien's camp (cannibalization of laughs), at least it's something different.

And that's what NBC needs. It doesn't need an online dating comedy like "100 Questions." What it needs is to totally reinvent itself. To be turned on its head in order to redefine what a primetime hit is. Or even just what an NBC show is.

What's more, Jeff Zucker and Ben Silverman have become punchlines among  many people who love the fact that the network has fallen so precipitously from its days of must-see-TV.

Nobody's expecting "Seinfeld" anymore. But there's nothing in this line-up that says "water cooler show," from the network that once defined that kind of television.

"Parenthood" ain't the answer.

*Industry definitions from TheWrap:

in-front - n - a network presentation to advertisers of new season shows, usually associated with NBC. related to up-fronts, the traditional presentation done two weeks later to sell advertising time ahead of television's big season.  
 

Now comes the hard part.

William Morris and Endeavor exchanged rings on Monday, and the honeymoon is sure to be wonderful.

And why wouldn't it be? With a client list like that -- Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Tina Fey -- and massive amounts of Hollywood mojo, people on both sides will be going through a transition that will take the newly formed WME Entertainment to the top of the agency heap, both revenue-wise and volume-wise.

But remember, marriage is really hard.

To say there's a culture difference -- in leadership style and history -- is an understatement. Simply, William Morris is still making money from "The Dick Van Dyke Show," while Endeavor is younger than, say, Shia LaBeouf -- one of WME's shared clients, by the way.

And that's not an easy thing to dismiss.

At least they do the same things. As talent agencies, both are familiar with the end game. In other words, it's not as pronounced a difference as, say, when the new-media world of AOL merged with old-guard dinosaur Time Warner.

But talk about a board full of personalities. The collective smarts of everyone involved is sure to lead to some hugely successful decisions, but the process by which everyone gets there could be very tense. What happens when Jim Wiatt and Ari Emanuel disagree ... strongly?

In the meantime, the staffers on both sides have a lot to keep them on edge. One person inside the agency said the mood is terrific ... or it's not, depending on who's talking. "On my floor, everything's great," he said. "But obviously, people not involved with the decision don't know what to think."

Indeed, just the basics are hard enough to predict. Who stays? Who goes? William Morris heavy hitter David Lonner is already leaving. So is Endeavor's Tom Strickler.

So what's going to happen when the consolidation really begins?