He’s a star in the making. Saturday Night Live’s fastest rising featured player since Will Ferrell. I wish I could have called this four years ago. If I had, I would’ve looked like a goddamn Nostradamus. Instead, I’m just one of the many people hopping on the Andy Samberg bandwagon.

A few years back, Tom Hanks was hosting SNL. I hadn’t watched the show in years, mainly since Ferrell and a host of others left, and the sole reason I turned it on was because of Hanks. After all, Hanks is my favorite actor and I miss him in nothing.

Anyway, there was one skit that stood out to me. It sounds stupid, but I remember it making me laugh harder than anything else. It was a song called "Testicles" and it featured Hanks and some other dude, dressed as gay German pop singers called Ariel and Efram.

The bit was kind of stupid, but the way Hanks and the other dude got into it was what made it work. The other dude was of course Andy Samberg.

Here’s the thing about SNL: it’s a show that has to be carried by one or two stalwarts in order for it to be successful. Think back on its history. Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Bill Murray, Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers, Phil Hartman, Will Ferrell. These are the people who’ve carried the torch.

In its bad years, it’s been carried by no one. The show needs a leader. What’s the reason it has fallen off in the past few years? The lack of a true stalwart. (The only memorable ratings stretch over the past five years was the Tina Fey as Sarah Palin show — more of a lucky coincidence for creator Lorne Michaels).

Actresses like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are great. Jimmy Fallon is a funny dude. Horatio Sanz — eh I could go without him. None of them could carry a show ala Ferrell. Until Samberg arrived in 2005, the show really didn’t have anyone in that realm. They didn’t have the go-to guy.

Samberg is that guy. If Michaels and company were smart, they’d make him the star. They’d continue to showcase him in the always funny Lonely Island skits. They’d also continue to let him flex his muscles as a great impressionist (his Mark Wahlberg is dead on). They’d give him meaningful characters like Myers’ Wayne Campbell or Linda Richman.

In an SNL skit from two weeks ago, I watched Samberg perform as "Shy Ronnie" alongside Rihanna. Typically, Samberg’s musical performances are met with high energy. This one was met with dead silence. After all, the guy’s name is Shy Ronnie. It worked beautifully. Even in silence, Samberg brought it.

It’s been said that Phil Hartman was the glue that held the late 1980s, early 1990s cast together. Undoubtedly without Hartman, names like Adam Sandler and Chris Farley would likely have as much meaning to us today as Gary Kroeger. Not that those guys weren’t talented. Obviously they were. However, with thriving SNL behind them (thanks to Hartman and also Mike Myers), they were able to showcase their talents to a wide audience and eventually leverage that into a movie career.

Hell, freaking Rob Schneider launched a successful movie career and I know he’s not talented.

If Lorne Michaels is smart, he’ll give Samberg a chance to carry the show (alongside the immensely talented Bill Hader) and the magic might just happen again.

I had low expectations for “White Collar,” an hour-long drama on the USA Network. The premise is a tired, aged-old scenario seen countless times throughout TV and film. A law enforcement agency works with a former criminal offering freedom in exchange for his expertise. Coming in, this recycled scenario was not something I expected to light the world on fire.

And it didn’t. But I didn’t mind it. As the show progressed through its pilot episode, it got stronger. It’s not exactly something I’d watch weekly but I still think it’s worth an hour to check out. The show centers on Neal Caffrey (Matt Bomer), a charming, professional con-man and Agent Peter Burke (Tim DeKay, aka “Bizzaro Jerry” from “Seinfeld”), a straight-laced law dog.

The first 20 minutes set up the series. Burke catches Caffrey after the latter escaped prison in an attempt to chase the woman he loves. While in custody, Caffrey tells Burke he can help him catch a particular con artist if he’s granted freedom. After hesitation and initial denial, Burke accepts Caffrey’s offer and we go from there.

Throughout the episode, the duo goes through a typical tumultuous road with trust issues at stake on the road to solving the mystery. Not shockingly, Caffrey finds the right man and helps Burke lock him down. The story itself was basic and formulaic. But that’s fine. If you want a plot that’s bold, daring and innovative – go to HBO or AMC, and for the love of God, stay away from USA.

USA’s shows typically rely on characters and not storylines. Their shows feature strong leads that can carry a 40 minute block such as Jeffrey Donovan (“Burn Notice”) and James Roday (“Psych”). “White Collar” has two strong leads with noticeable on-screen chemistry. Like their network counterparts, the duo also brings out the lighter side of drama (another USA Network theme).

The supporting cast leaves a little bit to be desired. In her 700th role since “Saved by the Bell,” Tiffani Thiessen (apparently the “Amber” in her name got the heave-ho) is horribly miscast as Burke’s wife. The only worthwhile cast member outside of Burke and Caffrey is Caffrey’s con-artist friend, Mozzie (Willie Garson).

Yet, a lackluster supporting cast doesn’t weigh down “White Collar” completely. Unlike “CSI” or “Law and Order”, “White Collar” is held up by a strong lead, not a strong ensemble. In this regard, as I said, this light-action drama is worth a look.

TV Quick Hits of the Week: This week was about getting to check out a few shows I hadn’t seen before.

Modern Family: (Check out the review from Blast’s Jill Vallecorsa) Love this show, it’s got great potential and I’ll probably add it to my weekly lineup. The most recent episode had a great tri-arch shifting between the three families. I particularly love the character of Manny (Rico Rodriguez) – probably the most appealing kid sitcom stars since Kevin Arnold. Ed O’Neill as Jay Pritchett is on top of his typical pig-headish, alpha-male game while the duo of Cameron (Eric Stonestreet) and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) creates great on screen chemistry.

Sons of Anarchy: I have to admit, I watched this show for the first time this past week. I was thoroughly impressed with Sons of Anarchy. In the episode I saw “Gilead,” there was great dramatic tension and comprehensive character interactions. One scene in particular where Jean Carlos “Juice” Ortiz (Theo Rossi) is about to get the “Oz” treatment, kept me on edge. It’s a very layered drama with outstanding performances from Charlie Hunnman as Jax, Ron Perlman as Clay and Katey Sagal (big week for the Bundy family) as Gemma. If you haven’t seen “Sons,” I highly recommend it.

Allow me to use this week’s edition of TV Week in Review to show my appreciation for a less-heralded brand of television entertainment. What stuck out on the tube this week was entertainment based in reality. No, not that kind of reality. Real reality. Heck, I’ll just say it.

I love documentaries. Always have, always will. Documentaries are a visual guide for the lazy lovers of non-fiction. Since I’m a lazy lover of non-fiction, and I don’t read it nearly as much as I should, I’ve always been drawn to documentaries. Whether it’s an episode of “True Lif” on MTV or Morgan Spurlock’s “Super Size Me,” I believe a good documentary is as entertaining as a good scripted drama. In fact, they’re often better because the drama is real.

So naturally, when I heard ESPN was bringing 30 original documentaries from 30 talented filmmakers in honor of their 30th anniversary, I was pretty excited. Love sports. Love docs. Love good filmmaking. It seemed like a natural love affair. Add in the ingenious ESPN “Sports Guy” Bill Simmons as the mastermind behind the project and I bought into it from the beginning.

After having watched the first three documentaries, my optimism and high expectations were realized and rewarded. Unlike ESPN’s last celebration of its anniversary, there has been nothing hokey about “30 for 30.” It’s just been enjoyable documentaries from talented filmmakers about stories which haven’t been broached one hundred times.

My favorite was “Small Potatoes: Who Killed the USFL?” It retells the story of an upstart spring football league established in the early 1980s that takes on the mighty NFL. “Small Potatoes” relieves the league’s rise, its prominence, its ultimate demise and lasting legacy. It also perfectly portrays the league’s villain (Mr. “You’re Fired” himself, Donald Trump).

Directed and narrated by Mike Tollin, who had first-hand experience in the USFL as its film guy, “Small Potatoes” has a striking amount of depth. One reason I liked it better than the first two “30 for 30″ documentaries, (“The Band That Wouldn’t Die” and “King’s Ransom” “" both pretty good in their own right), was its breadth of interviews. Tollin talked to an impressive cast of characters ranging from Keith Jackson to Burt Reynolds. It really gave a first-hand impression of what it was like to be there at the time.

All in all, the documentary did a great job of depicting the USFL’s relevance to pro football. This was a league that had Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Hershel Walker, Doug Flutie, Reggie White, Anthony Carter and many other future NFL stars. It was a league that introduced 2-point conversions, instant replay and post-TD celebration pizzazz. Furthermore, in terms of storyline development, Tollin pointedly gets to the reasons behind the league’s quick rise and fall.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Tollin, who directed the remarkable “Hank Aaron: Chasing the Dream” documentary back in the mid-1990s, could put together such an impressive piece. Yet, to do it in a mere 52 minutes is nothing short of extraordinary. If the “30 for 30″ series continues with this kind of work, I’ll be hoping for more ESPN-based celebrations in the future.

TV Quick Hits of the Week
South Park: “W.T.F.”
“South Park” is one of those shows that can baffle you, make you cry tears of laughter and then do both at the same time. This is episode does the latter. The boys find themselves wanting to be wrestlers after attending a WWE event. When they go and try out for the school’s wrestling team, they find out that “real” wrestling is homoerotic and weird. Instead, they make up their own faux-WWE (aptly titled Wrestling Takedown Federation”¦or W.T.F.) with ridiculous storylines involving aborted babies. Of course, their soap opera storylines attract a wide audience of dumb rednecks who think it’s all real. The episode takes a bizarre twist as the boys put on a Broadway-like production, with very little wrestling mixed in, for a bunch of dumb hillbillies. Elsewhere, the rejected amateur wrestling coach goes on a crusade to prove his “wrasslin’” is the real one. If it sounds silly, it is. But these are the kinds of “South Park” episodes I love the most.

The Big Bang Theory: “The Creepy Candy Corollary”
First off, am I the only person in the world that didn’t know Wil Wheaton from “Star Trek: The Next Generation” was Gordie Lachance from “Stand By M”? As a fan of both the show and that movie, I’m really disappointed in myself. Anyway, this episode saw Sheldon trying to exact revenge on a fictionalized, evil version of Wil Wheaton. Jim Parsons’ angry, angsty and comic-book-like actions as Sheldon leading up to the confrontation with Wheaton carried this episode. Also, I’m still stuck on his hilarious “four napkin rul” at the table with Leonard. Priceless. The side plot had Penny setting up Wolowitz with one of her friends in a run-of-the-mill storyline.

30 Rock: “Into the Crevass”
I’m not sure how I feel about “30 Rock.” I watch it and often find myself laughing and enjoying its snarky, clever humor. However, I read its constantly glowing reviews, watch it collect a bunch of Emmy awards and start to think it gets way too much credit. It’s funny, it’s cleverly written “" it’s just not that good. This week was a great example. The storylines weren’t compelling, nor were the characters. That’s a huge part of scripted TV. “Into the Crevass” relied on a bunch of funny one-liners (ala Family Guy). Sometimes I feel like this show would be better off running 23 minutes of straight one-liners and quick wit rather than come up some with a forced, lame storyline.

Television is one of the mediums in life where imitation is not only the sincerest form of flattery, it’s an absolute necessity.

Take for instance the concept of dancing. A show like “Dancing with the Stars” hits the airwaves and becomes an overnight success. Soon after, “So You Think You Can Dance,” “Dance Revolution” and a million other dance-related knockoffs follow suit.

It’s the age-old rule of television. If something is mildly successful, then there must be 800 subsequent knockoffs (799 of which will suck immensely).

The recently debuted ABC sitcom, “The Middle,” starring Patricia Heaton of “Everybody Loves Raymond,” immediately felt like a knockoff. Upon first view, it felt like something I had seen before. Watching a few episodes, I couldn’t help but feel as if borrowed the exact same concept from another one camera sitcom “" also about “The Middle.”

Yes my first, “This is a rip off of ___” inclination from The Middle was Malcolm in the Middle. By nearly sharing the same name, and both having a cute younger son, it was easily the most comparable. Then I remembered shows like “Home Improvement” and “Roseanne” dealt with the theme of working class struggles long before Frankie Muniz was a household name.

To put it bluntly, “The Middle” is nothing new. It’s middle America and a working class family trying to get by. It’s a mom that cares about her kids, loves her dimwitted husband and STRESSES (stress the stress) through each episode. It’s a tried and true formula. Unless we’re talking about baking a pie, I hate tried and true formulas.

My skeptical nature when it comes to new TV didn’t want me to open up to “The Middle.” Last week, I was burned by Kelsey Grammer’s “Hank,” a lazy rehash of a tired idea. I feared “The Middle” would be the same, and similarly waste Heaton’s talent like Grammer with Hank.

I won’t say I came away completely and utterly surprised. I still feel that shows like “Malcolm” and “Roseanne” did this concept better upon first glance. But there’s something endearing about Heaton’s Frankie and “The Middle” overall. Frankie is easily a character you can root for (unlike Grammer’s Hank). Heaton brings a gee-shucks charm to the character.

In the episode I watched, “The Floating Anniversary” I especially enjoyed her 15 “vacationing” minutes spent in the bathroom of the used car lot where she works. Also, credit goes out to the casting director for bringing aboard Scrubs’ Neil Flynn (aka Janitor) as Heaton’s husband, Mike. Flynn’s classic “I don’t give a shit, I’ll say what I think” attitude from Scrubs is transferred, and perhaps enhanced, to “The Middle.”

Lastly, Heaton’s three kids are well-rounded interesting characters played out perfectly by their respective actors. I especially enjoy watching the daughter Sue (Eden Sher) play the role of the awkward, smart middle child (almost as well as Muniz).

Overall, “The Middle” has a lot of positives. For a show with that “tried and true” formula, it never feels clichƒ© and overdone.

Three Quick Hits of the Week:
The Office: “Niagara”
This is the one “The Office” fans had been waiting for “" present company included. TV’s favorite couple, Jim and Pam, tying the knot and getting married. I loved it. Many critics have said an hour was too long for this episode, but I disagree. The hour made it feel more important than a typical episode. The entire ensemble was on for this one. From Meredith’s cigar to Kevin’s “shoes” and Andy’s tears, it was the best of everyone. For that reason, it felt like a special day for “The Office” and not just Pam and Jim.

The Cleveland Show: “The One About Friends”
I was actually considering writing my main piece about this show, but I decided against it. I vowed not to watch “The Cleveland Show” after it replaced “King of the Hill.” However, with the Pats and Sox losing on Sunday, I needed some kind of distraction and “The Cleveland Show” was just there. Blah. I wish I had stuck to commiserating about the Pats. The show is basically “Family Guy” light. Unfortunately for “Cleveland,” the best part about “Family Guy” is how un-light it is. There were few memorable moments (Cleveland getting arrested for confusing an undercover cop regarding “Cleveland Jr.” was one that comes to mind) and I pretty much liked the theme song more than anything else. Avoid.

Curb Your Enthusiasm: “The Hot Towel” “" This might shock those who know of my admiration for Larry David, but I didn’t like this episode. In it, Larry rekindles an old romance, pisses off Christian Slater and his doctor, and reveals to the world he doesn’t like people signing. In this episode, Larry’s awkward moments, such as stopping Sammy and then also the guy in the restaurant, bordered on cruel and weren’t that funny. The calling his doctor bit was obnoxious and running from the girl’s boyfriend was cowardly. Usually, Larry’s off-putting attitude during the course of an episode will make you like him even more than you did in the beginning of it. Not this time.

Let me know in the comments section if you agree with me or if you want me to cover your favorite show and check back next week for the next “TV Week in Review.”

One of the things I’ve constantly be given a hard time from my friends about is my penchant for good television writing. A lot of people take writing for granted in TV, but I stress its importance when referring to quality shows.

“Really it’s the writing? It’s got good writing you say” someone will ask me sarcastically, as if I’m pulling this trait out of my ass.

Yes, it’s the writing. It’s what makes good shows great, mediocre shows bad and bad shows unbearable. Take for instance, “Hank.” The new ABC sitcom, which debuted last Wednesday at 8 p.m., features one of my favorite actors of all time, Kelsey Grammer. Unfortunately, Kelsey’s latest foray into the world of sitcoms is not nearly as promising as his first two (“Frasier” and “Cheers” “" not “Back to You”).

Kelsey plays Hank Pryor, a former well to do CEO whose family is down on its luck and has to move from its ritzy New York City existence to the simple town of River Bend, VA, the hometown of his wife, Tilly (Melinda McGraw). With his past life behind him, he now must reconnect with Tilly and their two kids, Maddie (Jordan Hinson) and Henry (Nathan Gamble) while building himself back up.

Pryor is a snotty, arrogant, driven man that’s returning to familiar roots. Sound like someone you’ve watched before? It doesn’t take a genius to recognize it is a lot like Frasier, with the themes of adaptation and forming lost familial bonds playing a vital role in the show. However, there is one slight difference between Hank and Frasier.

“Hank” sucks and “Frasier” was one of the greatest sitcoms of all time. The difference? Writing. Well that and the supporting cast in Hank is not nearly as strong as Frasier. But it’s mostly writing that is “Hank’s” downfall.

For starters, the jokes were cringe worthy. Someone needs to tell ABC, the 1980s styled sitcom is as dead as the 1980s style hair. The storyline has been done many times before. And the for the most part, there were no sympathetic characters (a big difference between Frasier and Hank). Frasier may have been arrogant and pompous, but he was somehow lovable. You find none of that on Hank.

Unless the show changes dramatically, I have a hard time seeing it get picked up for a second season. People nowadays don’t like recycled crap. That’s unfortunate because Grammer is a talented comedic actor. But like many before him, even he cannot overcome terrible writing.

Three Quick Hits of the Week:

The Office: “The Promotion” “" The Promotion focuses on Jim and Michael trying to co-exist as leaders of the office. Unfortunately Michael is having a hard time letting go of responsibility, while Jim is having a hard time taking control. This episode was decent, but not great. Jim’s problem with leadership is a subject that’s been covered before. Still, in typical Office fashion, they made it seem relatively fresh.

The Big Bang Theory: “The Gothowitz Devotion” “" In this episode, Sheldon uses positive reinforcement in the form of chocolate to change Penny’s unacceptable behavior in his apartment. At it begins to work, Leonard finds offense with Sheldon for using his girlfriend as some kind of “lab rat.” In the side story, Raj and Howard go a Goth club to pick up ladies. Nothing stood out about this episode, but it wasn’t terrible. Any Sheldon-Penny episode is usually pretty solid.

Curb Your Enthusiasm: “The Reunion” “" The Reunion was probably the most anticipated episode in the history of Curb, and it didn’t disappoint. Larry decides, against previous inclinations, to stage a Seinfeld reunion show in order to win back Cheryl. The Seinfeld four return and Larry does his best convince them to do the reunion show. I won’t spoil anything but needless to say, in typical Curb fashion, not everything goes as planned. Perhaps it’s out of sheer fandom, but I really loved this episode. If you’re a fan of Curb or Seinfeld, it’s a must-see.

For some reason, I get into the Emmys. I think it’s because I equate watching my favorite TV shows to watching my favorite sport teams. Let me explain.

For an entire TV season, you get into your TV show, get to know every character, watch every episode all while immersing yourself into the plot. Just like how every (football, baseball, basketball, pick one) pro sport season, you become immersed with your team and its players.

Then if someone dares to challenge the entertainment value of your show, or even has the nerve to say another show is better, you turn into a raving lunatic in its defense. With sports, it’s the same thing. I’m not sure who I’ve defended more this past decade: Tom Brady or Dr. Frasier Crane.

The Emmys are the Superbowl of your TV season (if your show is lucky to make it). A year’s worth of hard work comes down to a three hour show surrounded by much fanfare. In a way, it’s actually kind of exciting. Then once your show loses/wins, you complain/celebrate, and just like with sports, you move on.

So without further ado — here are Blast’s 2009 major category Emmy Predictions:

Outstanding Drama Series

Should Win: Mad Men or Breaking Bad, either would suffice

Could Win: Breaking Bad

Will Win: Mad Men

How in the hell does Big Love get nominated? If I wanted to watch a bunch of Mormons marry each other and flirt with incest, I would’ve moved to Utah ages ago. The only show I see with a slight chance of upsetting Mad Men is Breaking Bad. Also, I know you people love Lost (it’s very popular from what I’ve heard), but I don’t see that happening.

Outstanding Comedy Series

Should Win: The Office

Could Win: Nothing “" it’ll be 30 Rock

Will Win: 30 Rock

Family Guy’s inclusion was relatively puzzling. If you’re going to give an animated sitcom an honorary nomination (which is what it is), why not pick The Simpsons or South Park? Or did Stewie get to them too? Anyway, the only thing surer than a 30 Rock victory is it getting beat in the ratings by Dancing with America’s Next Top Chef, or whatever Fox is putting on these days Thursday nights at 9:30.

Outstanding Actor in a Drama Series

Should Win: Hugh Laurie, House M.D.

Could Win: Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad

Will Win: Hugh Laurie, House M.D.

Hugh is getting a lot of buzz and rightfully so. Four straight years of nominations and nothing? PEOPLE. HE’S FROM ENGLAND AND GREGORY HOUSE IS FROM AMERICA. Alright, sorry but I think that’s kind of impressive. But then again the dad from Malcolm in the Middle playing a meth dealing, crime addict is pretty impressive too. I think Hugh gets his due, but with this category there’s always a surprise. I mean Simon Baker could win this thing on his smile alone.

Outstanding Actor in a Comedy Series

Should Win: Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Could Win: Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Will Win: Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

I have to admit, I’m extremely bias when it comes to this category. The Big Bang Theory is my favorite thing on TV right now (other than repeats of The Three Stooges). That being said, bias aside I still think he’s the best in this category. If you haven’t seen the show, I recommend it for Parsons alone. However, do not be shocked to see the Emmy voters go for the familiar in Baldwin. Steve Carrell has an outside shot. The other three guys have as much of a shot as the original three stooges themselves.

Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series

Should Win: Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

Could Win: Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer

Will Win: Glenn Close, Damages

Again I’ll admit, my should win is purely out of bias (but then again isn’t that what we always do with predictions?). I love Elisabeth Moss’ role of Peggy Olsen, it’s a complex, subtle character with underlying emotions. Glenn Close is a heavy favorite to repeat here. She would be a deserving winner, even though I’d like to see some fresh blood in there. Even though the Closer yearn for the days of My Own Worst Enemy, Kyra Sedgwick has an outside possibility.

Outstanding Actress in a Comedy Series

Should Win: Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Could Win: Toni Collette, United States of Tara

Will Win: Tina Fey, 30 Rock

I’m sensing a strong likelihood of another Tina Fey triple (Comedy Series, Comedy Actress and Comedy Writing). While I do think Ms. Fey is really funny, I hope she doesn’t turn into a Jeremy Piven or something and win every year. Toni Collette and Christina Applegate are really good in much more challenging roles. I mean, Tina Fey is essentially playing an exaggerated version of herself. That being said, I think she deserves the nod.

The remains

For the smaller categories, I’m predicting Neil Patrick Harris, Kristin Wiig, Michael Emerson, Chandra Wilson, The Amazing Race and who the hell cares about Reality Host? Oh and I predict Harris will be 800 times funnier and more clever than last year’s host quintet of Reality Show Hosts.

Enjoy the Emmys! Leave your own predictions in the comments section below!

Nicole Cullop is used to traveling across the continent to compete against guys, yet her most recent venture against the opposite gender was a bit different than her usual escapades.

Cullop, or LethalxPrincess as she’s known to many, is a pro-gamer by trade. For years, Cullop crisscrossed the nation with Major League Gaming (MLG) immersing herself in a cutthroat world while breaking stereotypes in the process. Her squad, Team Foxy, is considered the top female team in the gaming community.

Not surprisingly, it was actually gaming that connected Cullop to the Sound Tour. Sponsored by the popular headphone company, the tour, which we previously told you about, is a reality show pitting Cullop and a team of four other female contestants against a squad of all men.

“I heard about the Sennheiser Sound Tour through the gaming community. Sennheiser is a great product that is highly recognized for its quality in the professional gaming world. When the tour was announced, the word spread quickly in the E-Sports community” Cullop recalled.

With the ultimate goal to promote the Sennheiser headphone product base, the two teams have spanned North America participating in a variety of challenges. From meeting celebrities to getting on tour buses, Cullop admits it’s been a whirlwind ride.

“Personally, there are many highlights of the tour that I have enjoyed such as traveling, experiencing new communities, and meeting new and exciting individuals” said Cullop. Ever the gamer, she admits that for her personally, the best part of the tour has not been meeting a person or going to a particular place, but rather it’s been a simple truth.

“The biggest highlight of the tour so far has been the fact that the girl’s team is in the lead. We have won three challenges and the guys have only won one. I am a very competitive individual and I am confident we will take home the grand prize” she confided.

Along the way, both teams have been faced with the challenge of going up to people on the street to promote Sennheiser. While in some cases they’ve been shut out and rejected, most people have been willing to step in front of the camera according to Cullop.

“Generally people are accepting and don’t mind the camera, we actually seem to get better responses if the cameras are out and rolling. I think people want to know what’s going on with the cameras, the tour, and the product” said Cullop.

One of the Sennheiser girl’s most memorable visits was their trip to Boston. Between crashing a few weddings, visiting the Salem Witches Cottage and partying it up outside the Paul McCartney Fenway concert, the ladies got their fill of Beantown. Cullop says it was easily one her favorite places on the tour.

“My time in Boston was amazing; I literally fell in love with it the moment I arrived. Boston is now on my top five places to move. What I remember most about Boston was the atmosphere in the air, I went to Fenway Park, Faneuil Hall, and shopping on Newbury Street. Everywhere I went people were alive with spirit; they were helpful, and even entertaining. I would love to live in an area like Boston because it has so much to offer” she said.

With the tour winding down, Cullop admits she misses her Xbox, controller and gaming in general. Save for a few hours of gaming in NYC, she has not gotten a chance to play much while on tour. Despite this, Cullop contends she wouldn’t trade her Sennheiser Sound Tour experience for anything “" or any game “" in the world.

“The one thing I will bring away from this trip is the experience. No matter how the team does and no matter how I personally do in the competitions, I will always remember the new places, people, and experiences I have encountered along the way” concluded Cullop.