Super Bowl

As I said before, this Super Bowl sucks (and in deference to Phil, let me point out that I will be watching it on Ski Trip 2008: Knocking Boots In The Woods). I don’t like either team. I hope they both lose. I’m not sure how that can happen unless the Patriots win, but we find out later they were massively cheating. That would be my best case scenario. Then the Jared Lorenzen replaces an ineffective Eli Manning and leads the Giants to victory and utter embarrassment for the Patriots. Still, I guess I have to pick someone. I know a lot of people who are predicting the Patriots will blow them out. I’ve seen several others predicting the Giants will win, but for some reason, they seem to work for New York media outlets. There may be a connection there, but I choose not to delve into it.

Now, gambling-wise, I wouldn’t touch this game at all. On one hand, the Patriots haven’t been covering the spread in the second half of the season. That’s why the gamblers have bet an opening line of 13 ½ points down to 12. On the other hand, the Patriots are undefeated. They have the more potent offense. To be honest, I would be more likely to lean towards the Patriots covering 12 points. In fact, I could completely see the Patriots run away with it.

It’s not that the Giants don’t have some things going for them. They are in the Super Bowl. They did take the Pats to the wire in week 17. Some are pointing out how tested they are by winning 10 road games, including all three in the playoffs. The last team to make the Super Bowl after winning three road games in the playoffs was Pittsburgh who beat Seattle two years ago. Of course, if you look at that historical trend, the 1985 New England Patriots won three playoff road games on their way to the Super Bowl. After an admirable lack of effort, they managed to keep the score within a respectable 36 points against the Bears. You see, that’s the main reason I would discount this playoff road victory crap. The Steelers were facing a Seattle team with a nice record, but no one thought they were a really strong team. Plus, the Steelers played in the AFC which was also the much better conference two years ago. Much like today. Unfortunately for the Giants, they play in the weaker conference. So, you have a juggernaut of a team that will (with a win) go down as one of the all time greats playing a non-division winner from a weaker conference. That’s exactly what the ’85 Bears trouncing the ’85 Patriots was.

So, I can easily see this year’s Patriots steam-rolling a win. I’m not sure I think it’s more likely than the Patriots covering the spread, but I do think it’s more likely than the Giants winning. I’m not going to the stupid argument that the Patriots will now be more focused because the Giants are running their mouths. For one, Michael Strahan is right. How much better are the Patriots going to play? It’s the friggin’ Super Bowl. For another, how badly are media people when they make a big deal about Plaxico Burress predicting a 23-17 win or Antonio Pierce saying they aren’t there “to play second fiddle to anyone”? Give me a break. Are they supposed to say they just hope to keep it close? Are the Patriots going to pump themselves up by saying the Giants came to the Super Bowl not expecting to lose?

I just don’t think the Giants are as good as the Patriots. The Giants have a good defense and running game. I still think Eli Manning’s sole benefit to the team in the playoffs has been not screwing up. Their wins were never by more than 10 points and were over Tampa (decent team, but not really scary), Dallas (with Romo self-destructing again) and Green Bay (in bad weather which the Packers, ironically, didn’t seem to handle well). Now, the Giants did beat them. However, none of those teams are of the caliber of the Patriots. Burress said that the Giants’ have better receivers than the Patriots, but he’s stupid. They don’t. I find it very unlikely that Tom Brady will self-destruct like Romo did. Add to that the fact that Laurence Maroney has run good when the Patriots actually give the ball to him. And considering the game is in Arizona, the weather isn’t going to affect the Patriots’ passing game. As I said, the Giants’ defense has played well in the playoffs, and some people think it played well against the Patriots the first time around. Not sure how giving up 38 points at home is playing well.

I think the key for the Giants is controlling the clock with the running game. They did come out throwing in the first game, but I think the Patriots weren’t expecting that. They will this time. So, keep the Patriots offense off the field. Michael Turner was able to smash the Patriots defensive line, so that’s a plus for Brandon Jacobs. Ahmad Bradshaw has the speed to really cause problems for the Patriots’ linebackers. I don’t think Burress will get open against the Patriots the way he did against the Packers. Actually, I think the Patriots will actually adjust if he is getting open against them. The best chance to win could be on that Giants’ defense. They’ve got to hold because the Giants won’t win a shootout. They have too many drives that fall apart at crucial moments. In the first game, the Giants were more than matching the Patriots as they held a 28-16 lead after scoring on the first drive in the second half. They didn’t score again until the last drive with a minute left when they pulled within 38-35. The Patriots can score three unanswered touchdowns. The question is can the Giants? I don’t think so. Nor do I think Manning’s streak of not screwing up will continue. So, the Patriots win. If I had to bet, I would take them to cover the spread.

News of the Week

It's always nice when someone's death-by-stupidity is followed a family member showing where he got that stupidity. It recently happened after three dumbasses in Colorado got drunk and died when their car hit a light pole at over 100 mph. In the wake of brother's tragic death, one of them's sister remarked, "The thing that makes me feel much better about this is they died doing what they loved to do -- they were drinking, they were going fast, and they were together." Right. Your brother died in an avoidable accident, and you're happy because he took two others with him? Man, I bet she'd be ecstatic if they had taken out a school bus while they were at it.

A bunch of bureaucrats in D.C. got canned for surfing porn at work. Don't their coworkers get suspicious when they take their computer to the bathroom for an hour? Gee, I wonder why they thought such behavior would be tolerated in a city that looks for ethical leadership in city government. Remind me again why the District of Columbia isn't a state?

I'm supposed to be somewhere next weekend, but where the Hell was I going?

Nice to see England is quietly surrendering to the coming Eurabia. The latest example is a CD book being banned from a government award because it's based on the story of the Three Little Pigs. And as we all know, Muslims believe pigs are unclean and might be offended. Please. The thought that Muslims could possibly offended by children's books is ridiculous. That would be like them rioting over some cartoons. What's next? Threatening death on an actor who gets a wax statue?

Of course, when the Muslims take over England, they better be prepared to use the metric system exclusively. I've mentioned before the propensity of British cops to hassle middle aged women while avoiding real criminals. Well, now they are hassling one who used standard units of measurement at her vegetable stand instead of metric. Why did she do that? Her customers like standard weights better. In this country, we have government officials that go around checking scales and gas pumps and such. Of course, they generally don't take cops with them. And their function is to make sure things are calibrated correctly so the consumer won't be confused about what they're buying. If you pay for a gallon of gas, you should get one. In England, the point seems to be to confuse the consumer by making them take their produce in weights they aren't familiar with.

This home video of Atlanta during their latest "snowstorm" brought back memories of when I lived in northern Georgia. It's really cute to hear the term snowstorm used for 1 to 3 inches. One year I was living in Rossville, and we got 4 inches of snow (take that Atlanta). They were selling "I survived the blizzard" T-shirts. I found the 4 inches of snow as a hassle to be quite amusing because I lived in Louisville during the 1978 blizzard, and that was a real blizzard. Six years old and I couldn't walk through it. Come to think of it, I was in college in Owensboro, KY when the next big storm to hit in 1994 (it hit us before Louisville). Now, that one didn't have as much snow, but the cold was bone-chilling. This picture was taken almost a week after it hit. Just in time for a cookout. Hint: If you're drunk at 10am, it's not that cold.

Sadly, I've discovered that many of my co-workers in Lexington are a bunch of pussies when it comes to cold weather. Okay, it got fairly cold recently. However, when you're bitching that you made a mistake going out for lunch because it's only 20 degrees, you're a wuss. I realize that 20 second walk from the building door to a car is excruciating, but you know what? We survived.

I was kind of bummed that Fred Thompson dropped out of the Republican primary. Not did he have a voting record to match his speeches, he was in both The Hunt For The Red October and Die Hard 2 (would have been better if he had been in one of the other Die Hard movies, but it's still a Die Hard movie). On the Democratic side, Dennis Kucinich dropped out. I liked how the story said he would explain the "transition" later. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that no one was really voting for him. He couldn't even get a vote from his wife (because she's still a British citizen so she can't vote). I don't know if the UFO constituency is that small or if running on his record as the mayor of Cleveland when it went bankrupt wasn't the best move. Actually, the only positive I can see is that he proved hobbits can marry up women who are 30 years younger and a foot taller.

Well, if Phil ever decides to get back into the online dating websites again, I found a great one in Conjugalharmony.com. Nothing says love like a wife in prison for life. I signed up for all the girls in Mississippi because it's relatively close (fortunately, Fisty is there, and there's just something about that name). Then I realized the whole thing might be a joke. Then I was sad.

In serious news, a suicide bomber was trying to blow himself up in an Afghani marketplace. Except he fell down some stairs and detonated himself. Did I laugh? My ass off.

In other terror related news, Hamas was whining because Israel stopped shipments of diesel fuel to Gaza which was used to run the electric plant. The reason? There was a "spike in rocket attacks" against Israel coming from Gaza. Which implies that Israel had been sending the fuel when the rocket attacks against them were at an "acceptable" level. So, even though oil rich Arab countries have been known to raise a lot money for Arab suicide bombers from the Palestinian territories, those territories face starvation if they aren't supplied by Israel, a country that they've sworn to destroy? And the Israelis are the bad guys? It's pretty bad when the Washington Post isn't even buying it anymore.

The most interesting terror (sort of) case was the teenager who was arrested for planning to hijack a plane using handcuffs, duct tape and rope. Yeah, good luck with that wonderful plan. That's not even enough for a good S&M party. Or so I've heard. The best part was his goal. He was going to crash the plane into a Hannah Montana concert. Nice to have goals.

I hate the Sundance Channel. It takes advantage of me when I come home after a few (several) drinks by putting on movies I've never heard of but including intriguing synopsis on the cable guide. Which is how I end up watching Sleeping Dogs Lie. The guide said Bobcat Goldthwait wrote and directed it. He's funny. The father from Unhappily Ever After is in it. I liked that show. Maybe this will have an imaginary bunny. The guide says its a comedy about a woman who gets in her boyfriend's doghouse over a "sexual transgression" from her distant past. Funny people. Possibly kinky sexual situation. Why can't this be a good movie? Well, you can start by making the sexual transgression something along the lines of the woman giving oral sex to her dog while in college (kind of makes those college lesbian flings seem pretty tame). And she wasn't even drunk. I stayed with it out of bizarre curiosity on how she was going to tell her boyfriend. She kind of blurted it out at her parents' house, and then the rest of her family finds out which leads to her losing her boyfriend, severely damaging her relationship with her father and causing enough stress that it may have led to a fatal aneurysm in her mother. But then in the end, she meets a new guy who doesn't get told the Fido story, reconnects with her father (at her mother's funeral) and gets a note from her dead mother saying it was okay that she had sex with a dog because everyone makes mistakes. So, the moral of the story is that having sex with canines might be OK, but don't tell anyone about it. I really should have recorded this movie, because I think there could be a lesson for all of us in it.

Conference Championship Recaps

Someone please explain to me how so many coaches get so stupid in the playoffs. Last year we had the immortal Ron Rivera explaining that it never occurred to Chicago’s defensive coaches that Peyton Manning might resort to a series of short passes instead of his usual downfield gunning. Apparently, Rivera continued to believe that in spite of the fact that the Super Bowl was played in a steady downpour which isn’t conducive to deep passing. Oh wait. Rivera also continued to believe that in spite of the fact that Manning ran a short passing game the entire game. Of course, he might have been confused because Chicago’s offense continued to throw deep in spite of the fact the Super Bowl was played in a steady downpour which isn’t conducive to deep passing.

Well, in losing efforts, San Diego and Green Bay decided to prove that there’s no way they were going to change their original assumptions just because they weren’t working. With San Diego, it was their quarterback. I’m not going to mention names, but someone who looks and smells a whole lot like me suggested before the game that the Chargers would be better off if they benched Philip “My Knee Hurts” Rivers because a healthy Volek has to be better than a gimpy Rivers. Nothing Rivers did changed my mind. Some people were telling me they thought Rivers played well. Only four field goals tells me something different. It wasn’t that Rivers didn’t make some good throws. The problem is that he didn’t make any exceptional one (ones that Volek couldn’t have made), and he made some really bad ones. Rivers was obviously favoring the knee which is why he wasn’t stepping through his passes which caused them to be short of the receiver. Now, incompletions are a bad result of that. Even worse were the two interceptions on passes that came up short. There were also incompletions that resulted from his inability to scramble. He couldn’t run away from the rush or even step up much in the pocket, so too often he’s getting rid of the ball before he should, often while the receivers are just beginning their routes. I’ll let you in on a little secret. Receivers struggle to catch passes that hit them in the back.

I understand going for broke in a game like this, but you can’t tell me Billy Volek couldn’t have gotten at least one touchdown in this game. It could have set up well for the Chargers. Even though LaDanian Tomlinson was out, Michael Turner was plowing through people enough to keep the Patriots’ defense honest. Receivers were getting open. The Chargers’ defense was doing a good job. How often are you going to get three interceptions from Tom Brady? Yet, you lose 21-12 because you have to kick field goals all night.

What made the whole Rivers situation even dumber was the reaction of some commentators (and later columnists). Bill Cowher said at the half that the Chargers should pull Rivers because he was becoming a hindrance (I beat him to that suggestion by at least a quarter). To begin with, the columnist called him hypocritical because Cowher had left Ben Roethlisberger in games he was playing poorly. Well, to begin with, maybe that’s why Cowher has a good understanding about the situation. He has experience with it. But it’s comparing apples to oranges. Roethlisberger just wasn’t playing well so a lot of coaches would have let him play through because they knew he could play well. Rivers was hampered by a bad wheel. That ain’t going to heal during halftime. Boomer Esiason and Phil Simms disagreed which further proves just because I like you as a quarterback doesn’t mean I don’t think you’re pretty dumb. Their argument was Rivers is the “heart and soul of the team”, and they saw no reason to bench him. Well, let’s use hindsight and see who was correct (something the idiot columnist didn’t feel like pursuing). The Chargers scored 3 points in the second half. Since they were already down 5 points, 3 points meant nothing. Do Boomer and Phil think Volek couldn’t get 3 points in an entire half? Gee, I wonder if the Chargers would have had negative points in the second half if Rivers wasn’t the heart and soul of the team.

Then there was the Green Bay/New York fiasco that actually resembled the Super Bowl in a lot of ways. Green Bay really didn’t try to establish the run. They ran in obvious run situations to the point it was easy to tell when it was coming. Then in the fourth quarter, the Packers had two 3 and outs when they just needed to work downfield and kick a field goal. Instead, Favre is throwing deep on every play even though there was plenty of time left. I guess I can’t accuse the Packers of being too dumb, because I fully expected this to happen. Favre and Peyton Manning have the same mentality in games like this. They are bound and determined to win it themselves so they start chucking away. Manning did it last week against the Chargers, and two years ago, I thought his downfield chucking had as much to do with Indy’s loss to the Steelers as a missed field goal.

What was really dumb was what the Packers did on defense. New York’s running game was only so-so. Their backs had to work for every yard they got. The Giants’ passing game seemed to be Eli Manning throwing it in Plaxico Burress direction and hoping he would catch it. Which worked because of the defense the Packers were playing. They decided to single cover the receivers which would be okay if they were actually covering well. They weren’t. To begin with, Burress was making some great catches (where was that when he was in Pittsburgh). Steve Smith and Amani Toomer were making some great catches. Contrary to what the paper was saying, Eli was not making great throws (yards after the catch were pretty low). They were also getting open because the cornerbacks (Al Harris on Burress especially) were jamming the receivers at the line of scrimmage, but doing a piss poor job of it. They’d hit the receiver in the first five yards, but with little effect other than knocking themselves off balance and letting the receiver get five yards on them. Stayed in the same defense so receivers were wide open on the field. I was beginning to wonder how many yards Burress needed to get before the Packers gave Harris some help. Apparently 154. Once again, just plain dumb.

So, what does stupidity give me? Instead of watching a palatable matchup of Green Bay and San Diego, I get to watch a game between two teams I don’t like and never really have liked. I’m trying to figure out a way for both of them to lose because common morality says I can’t wish for their planes to crash into each other on the trip to Arizona. My best hope is that Eli Manning gets hurt and Jared Lorenzen leads them to victory. Can you imagine the response if the Patriots’ perfect season was derailed by the Pillsbury Throwboy?

Little Stories

Have I ever mentioned how little respect I have for the Congressional delegation from Alaska? Actually, I have, especially about Senator Ted Stevens. It just boggles my mind the gall that delegation has when it comes to federal appropriations. That state is basically a federal welfare leech that sucks more money per person from the federal dole than any other state. Yet, it doesn't even have a state income tax, and citizens there get a dividend check from oil production. That still doesn't stop those sons of bitches from trying to freeload some extra money. Before they had the "bridges to nowhere". Now, they have the "ferry to nowhere" which is a federally funded ferry where the bridges would have gone. Hey, if they want a ferry, fine. Just pay for it yourself.

Speaking of people on the federal dole, the Katrina victim society is still in action. You would think that no other state had ever been hit by such a large hurricane. Well, Katrina was a category 3 when it hit land in the U.S.. Hurricane Andrew made land as a category 5. I saw the damage that Andrew made. Homestead was flattened. Yet, its citizenry picked themselves up and rebuilt. What happens in New Orleans? First, they riot over the tearing down of some old public housing to redevelop which might be inconvenient for freeloaders. Then I see where one of the biggest activists/freeloaders lived in a "free" (to her) apartment with a 60 inch television. Have they ever thought of a means test for free housing? Things like if you have a new 60 inch TV, you have the means to pay your own damn rent. Now, we're finding where such "victims" are filing huge claims from the government, including several for billions of dollars. A spokeswoman said "we're taking every claim seriously". Well, first thing to do is fire her ass for stupidity if she thinks a billion dollar claim should be taken seriously, let alone a $3 quadrillion one. The second thing to do is start charging people with fraud. A government compensation claim is not a wishlist. If there isn't a valid reason for that amount, the person filing the claim lied on a federal form. Taking every claim seriously my ass.

I'm watching the Florida/Kentucky basketball game, and it looks like the upper deck in Florida's arena is mostly empty. Gee, I thought this was a basketball school now. I guess their fans are front-runners.

Also listening to UL vomit up a loss to Seton Hall. Every time I begin to expect good things from this team, they really blow one.

We recently had the anniversary of the breaking of the Monica Lewinsky presidential hummer story on the Drudge Report. Interesting timing since Chris Matthews felt the need to apologize to for basically saying that Hillary Clinton's political career was built on her husband's adultery building sympathy for her. Didn't make much sense to me. I think her political career has been built because she was married to Bill Clinton who has a core following and already established political organization. That's why she would never think of divorcing him at this point. Although in fairness to her, I think Hillary has managed to build her own following (mainly women). Still, I don't want to talk about the bizarre Clinton marriage/partnership. I want to talk about how I was personally affected by the story breaking. At that time, the internet was a new toy. The breaking of the story on Drudge showed me that the internet could be more than just sports scores and pornography. It could be about important news stories. With pornographic slants.

There are certain stories that make you think "only in Sweden". This is one of them. The bomb squad was called to disarm a vibrating package. That package turned out to be a sex toy. Let this be a lesson to all of you. When you send a vibrator, take the batteries out. Batteries are expensive. Don't take the chance of them wearing down.

A transgendered womanthing is suing a hospital for not giving her a boob job. To be honest, I am in favor of boob jobs if that's what a woman wants. However, I am opposed to sex change operations. The reason for sex change operations is because the person "suffers" from Gender Identity Disorder or what I call by the acronym B.S.. I'm not going to say these people aren't suffering some kind of psychological problem. If they want to slice off junior, they are suffering a psychological problem. My beef (heh, heh, I said beef) is the question of what other psychological problem is solved by mutilating (and that is what is being done) the person? How about curing Narcissism by beating the patient until they are ugly? It's mental. Work on the brain. Studies are now showing that the mutilation isn't really working. But I don't want to talk about sex changes in general or religious affiliated hospitals' right to refuse to do elective surgery. I want to talk about this particular case. It is claiming that it wanted a boob job because "it will make her more feminine". I saw the picture. A boob job wouldn't be enough.

Larry Craig just won't go away. I've mentioned before my biggest problem with Craig isn't the gay thing (oh, wait, he says he isn't gay). It's the fact that he wants to have sex in a public toilet. Well, now he has the ACLU saying he has the right to have sex in a public toilet. I guess on one hand I should be happy that the ACLU is claiming a right to privacy in a public can since I've done some pretty bad things there. But they were dietary related. Public toilets are not private enough that anyone should be having sex there. Now, on the other point, I do agree with the ACLU. No one should be arrested for trying to pick up a date in the bathroom as long as the sex act is to take place elsewhere. While I think it's a pretty sick pickup joint, technically the behavior is no different than doing it at a bar or restaurant (or my favorite place, high school). Unless a person is insistent after being told no, asking someone for sex isn't really a crime. Tying them up and keeping them locked in a closet for several months is a crime. But damn it's fun.

If you're riding a bus in Fort Worth, you can feel free that you won't have to worry about someone reading the Bible out loud when you're on the bus. To be honest, I probably would have ignored this story except a quote from the bus lines spokeswoman that cracking down on noise from passengers "is a standard policy across country in the transit industry". Do bureaucracies always look for stupid people to speak for them? Have you ridden a city bus in a major city? You're lucky if you can hear the person next to you. Granted in the land of my high school graduation, they'll revoke your bus pass if you get a bunch of helpers to beat the Hell out of a fellow passenger.

Speaking of assault, George Clooney pissed off Fabio to the point that Fabio wants to kick his ass. Now that would have been a story. Fabio may have made his name as a romance novel cover boy, but he's a big guy. Clooney is shorter than me. I think Clooney would have gotten his ass kicked.

Reason #1,329,054 why a fence should also be built on the northern border. A Canadian woman sued her drug dealer because the crystal meth she used gave her a heart attack. I'm not real sure what the rationale was. To be begin with, the story said she didn't ask for change because she was already suffering the effects of a heart attack. So, I'm not real sure the crystal meth can be blamed for the heart attack. It's never happened to me. Plus, I think there is an expectation here. Did she really think crystal meth was good for her?

A man was sentenced to community service and probation for sending the guy who was cuckolding him a cow's head. The important line is that he "understands that in a civilized society a person cannot send a severed cow's head to anybody." Wanna bet? I can think of a lot of reasons why I should be able to mail a severed head to somebody. Boinking my wife would probably be on it.

NFL Conference Championship Picks

I really need to start picking based on point spread instead of straight up. I would have been three for four. The miss would have been the Colts. No way they should have failed to cover the spread, let alone lost to the Chargers. The Chargers didn't even have star running back LaDanian Tomlinson when they made the game winning drive, nor did they have Philip Rivers. Of course, the lack of Rivers meant the Colts had to face Billy Volek. And with Volek, you can't stop him. You can only hope to contain him. I guess last year was an aberration and the Colts are going to keep choking in the playoffs. The Cowgirls too. A lot of people (Terrell Owens mainly) are saying that Tony Romo's trip to Cabo should not be blamed for the loss. In theory, that's true. He choked in last year's playoff. It just seems he doesn't do too well with pressure on him. Which means you can't really blame Jessica Simpson unless one truly thinks her bodily secretions are toxic (something I'm willing to risk my life checking). The truly ironic aftermath of the Cowboys' loss was offensive coordinator Jason Garrett became the hot coaching property with Baltimore and Atlanta making a big push to hire him before he re-upped as OC with Dallas and got head coach pay (sucks to be Wade Phillips). All that for a one year coordinator who took over what was already a top 5 offense and simply maintained it until it coughed up a hairball against New York.

One interesting thing to note is both conference championship games are rematches of week 2 beatdowns. New England beat San Diego 38-14 then, and the Packers beat the Giants 35-13. Now, the Giants can take comfort in the fact that they've already won a rematch in the playoffs, but that's skewed by the fact that it was their third game against the Cowgirls and they lost the other two. Plus, in three other rematches in the playoffs, the original winner also won the second game. Jacksonville beating Pittsburgh for the second time and San Diego won rematches over both Tennessee and Indianapolis. Now, on to the games.

San Deigo @ New England
San Diego got absolutely thumped by the Patriots the first time around. Now, the Chargers played much better ball down the stretch. Is it enough to pull out a win this time around? Well, it will probably have to be without Philip Rivers. I think they would be foolish to put Rivers out there if he's got a partially torn ACL. I saw Dennis Dixon try to play with one of those for Oregon this year. He sucked and then completely blew it out on a play he didn't even take a hit. It's not so much that I'm concerned for Rivers' long term health. He showed by his antics again (jawing with Colts' fans when you aren't even playing anymore is chump behavior) that he's pretty much an ass. No, it's the fact that while Rivers may be a competant quarterback, I'm not convinced he's in an elite category or even a whole lot better than Volek. Give him a bad leg, and he's worse than Volek.

In fact, I think Volek may do a little better than a healthy Rivers would. Jacksonville had a good game plan going against the Patriots offensively. They didn't put up big rushing numbers, but the Patriots fear of it opened up the field for a safe play-action passing game for David Garrard. The Jags burned clock and moved the ball well with only one punt. Unfortunately for them, the only two turnovers were by Jacksonville. When those are combined with a defense that couldn't make one stop, the Jags were always just behind. Rivers has the ability to have a huge game, but he also can be inconsistent. Volek has two things going for him. He's been less mistake prone in previous seasons (mostly in Tennessee) than Rivers. He also hasn't played a whole lot this year. One big advantage the Patriots have is they always seem to have better info on their opponents (often by cheating). Not much game film on Volek with the Chargers, and a couple of other non-starters (Kyle Boller and AJ Feeley) had some of the better quarterback performances against them.

San Diego has some other things going for them. Their defense is better than Jacksonville, and they lead the league in interceptions. That could be a key since the game could be windy which could affect the passing game. If play action worked with Jacksonville, it should work with LaDanian Tomlinson. Only hitch could be that LT got hurt in the last game. While he's expected to play, a less than 100% LT could give the game to the Patriots. Michael Turner is a good back, but he doesn't have the shiftiness that LT does. Another problem is safe passes often go to tight ends and San Diego has a good one in Antonio Gates, but he's hurt too.

The biggest problem for the Chargers is the Patriots. They haven't lost a game. They've been lucky, but they are good. And San Diego isn't going to sneak up on them after the Chargers' giant Russian called them out (although I like the confidence). The Patriots are now running the ball well, so the wind may not hurt the Pats' passing game as much as it could have. Plus, the Chargers need to get away from the Jags' idea to shut down Randy Moss. They did shut him down, but Tom Brady completed 25 out of 27 passes to everyone else because everything short was open. So, who is the pick? The spread opened at 15, and if I could get that now, I would definitely take the Chargers to cover that spread. While they absolutely killed a lot of opponents, they weren't doing it so often at the end of the year. In their last nine games (including playoffs), only three teams didn't cover a 12 point spread spread, let alone 15 points. However, I think the Patriots make the Super Bowl.

New York Giants @ Green Bay
This is a weird game. Green Bay thumps Seattle to get a home game in a freezing cold Green Bay against a Giants' team that needed Dallas to self-destruct to even be here. I'm still not sure how the Giants pulled that off, but I'll let Hitler give it a shot (note: this video could be considered pretty offensive, but I hate the Cowboys so I'm linking it). Yet, to read a lot of the press, the Giants should be the 6 1/2 point favorite, not the Packers. It's almost like there is a bias towards teams that are based on the eastern seaboard. Almost like an East Coast Bias in sports writing. The assumption this is based on is the Giants are a hot team who win on the road and are led by a newly mature Eli Manning.

Let's look at these assumptions. The "hot team" assumption is based on winning two playoff games and only losing to New England by three. Well, since their week 9 bye week, the Giants are 6-4 including those two playoff wins. Really scorching there. As for the road wins, it is impressive that they've only lost one road game, but until wins over Tampa and Dallas in the playoffs, they only played two other playoff teams on the road and went 1-1 at Dallas and Washington. Color me not totally impressed. As for Eli Manning suddenly maturing, don't make me laugh. The concept of Eli playing great is that he doesn't throw the crippling interception at a crucial point like he has so many times. Of course, the reason is that the Giants don't want him passing at all in the second half. In the second half at Dallas, the Giants had only one scoring drive, and it began on Dallas' 37 yard line. On the other drives, he tried three passes with one completion. The other two didn't really count as attempts because he took bad sacks on both of them. Which I guess is better than throwing a pick. The question is - if they had needed to drive the field for a touchdown, would anyone have put money on Eli getting them one?

The Giants do have a chance. For one, their defense is playing pretty well. And they have a strong running game which is important when playing in Siberia, Wisconsin. However, I'm not sure their defense is playing as well as some think. Tampa really wasn't an explosive offense, and Dallas just choked. The plays were there for them, but the Cowgirls just didn't execute. Minnesota and New England flat blew the Giants up in the latter half of the season. Otherwise, the Giants were shutting down teams with less than stellar offenses. I don't think the Packers are going to fold as easily. Yeah, Brett Favre didn't play that well in the cold a few weeks ago, but I think it was the Bears' defense that was the bigger problem. He's really struggled with them of late. Last week against Seattle, he played great in the snow. So did running back Ryan Grant. I think the Giants will need more than 24 points this week.

As for the Giants running in the snow, they might be able to, but they've been talking a lot about how they plan on dealing with it. That's a bad sign for New York fans. If their team is that worried about the cold, they won't be focused on the actual playing. I think playing in that kind of cold is somewhat psychological. Yes, Green Bay players are more used to it, but how many games have they actually played in absolutely freezing weather? Not a whole lot. The Packers don't practice outside when it's that cold either. Sure, living in it means they are more used to it. And I think that gives them the edge because they just aren't worried about it. So, I think the Packers win and they cover the 6 1/2 point spread.

Big News Stories

When the screenwriters went on strike, I really didn't care. To begin with, I really don't watch much scripted television or first run movies. Having the Golden Globes canceled was actually pretty nice because they could have aired something better, like a test pattern. Plus, there are some really lousy TV shows out there. Consider the fact that Cavemen got on the air this year. How bad could the shows that didn't get green-lit be? There's been a lot of concern about movies making less money every year and Hollywood types wondering why. Here's why - people pay to have garbage taken away. They don't like paying to watch it. So, I think it's obvious that too many people are stealing money with their writing.

However, something happened that made me take sides. The writer's guild came off like a bunch of douchebags when they made a separate deal with David Letterman so that his writers went back to work. Seems a bit strange to me that you would stop striking one person while continuing to strike another. When a coal mine strikes, I don't hear that one section gets to go back to work because they are such fine fellows. This whole interim deal is completely bogus. The argument is that Letterman could make the deal because unlike Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel, Letterman's production company owns the show. However, the interim deal says they'll agree to the writer's guild's demands, but (and this is a major but) this deal will be supplanted by whatever agreement the guild makes with the studios because CBS actually owns the rebroadcast rights to Letterman's show. So, essentially, Letterman's writers get to go back to drawing a paycheck even though their eventual agreement will be the exact same one the others will get.

Now, why would this tick me off? The writer's guild is shafting their own members. First, Letterman's writers will get the benefit of the strike without having to suffer the same financial consequences as other writers. So, why is the guild so willing to do this even though the interim agreement is a fraud? Apparently, CBS isn't a big player in the negotiations, but NBC is. Helping Letterman would hurt NBC if he takes away Leno's audience. Not only would Letterman have his own writers, but people from the other douchebag group, the Screen Actors Guild, won't cross the lines to go on shows with striking writers. Now, the writer's guild is bitching about Leno writing his own monologues. Why? Leno (and Kimmel and Colbert and Stewart) is a member of the writer's guild. That is what is pissing me off the most. The people signed a garbage agreement with Letterman to kill Leno's ratings to force NBC's hand in their negotiations. So, basically, the WGA is stabbing certain members of their guild in the back by trying to destroy their shows, but it wants to sanction Leno for trying to save it? What a bunch of douchebags.

Speaking of douchebags, I was hoping that Roger Clemens would just fade away after his name came out on baseball's steroid report with the accusation from his former trainer, Brian McNamee (I hate spelling his name so he will be known only as The Trainer), that he was injected with HG and steroids.. But he's decided to make the whole thing even more bizarre. First, his only defense was a Youtube video that claimed The Trainer never injected him with anything. By the time he did a 60 Minutes interview, he was only injected with Lidocaine (a local painkiller that would not be injected into your ass for an arm problem) and vitamin B12 (which is what Jose Conseco claimed in his book was baseball players' code for steroids). Finally, Clemens had a follow-up press conference where he played a taped phone call between The Trainer and himself where Clemens denied using steroids. Then Clemens filed a defamation lawsuit against The Trainer (which conveniently may give him an out from testifying before Congress under oath).

So, did he convince me? Hell no. The taped call played at the press conference was useless. It was made after the report came out, and Clemens was making the tape so of course he was going to deny steroid use on the tape. However, The Trainer never said he lied about giving Clemens steroids, and when he asked Clemens what he wanted him to do, Clemens told him to tell the truth. But Clemens never said that the truth he wanted him to tell was that Clemens didn't do steroids. The feds don't really like it when you suborn perjury of their witnesses. The 60 Minutes interview was a joke as CBS News was so intent on getting the interview that they capitulated to every demand. It was done at Clemens' home and by a 90 year old Mike Wallace who considers Clemens a personal friend which explains the less than hard hitting interview. Wallace pretty much let Clemens get away with some fairly ludicrous stuff.

Let's take a close look at what Clemens said in the interview. I knew he was full of crap when he used a straw man argument as proof that he couldn't have been injected with steroids. He said he would have grown a third ear and had injury problems. Well, since no one has ever claimed steroids lead you to grow extra body parts, saying the lack of an extra ear is proof you aren't roided up is garbage. As for injuries, steroids do cause some players to have some injury problems, but it's almost irrelevant for Clemens because he's not an every day player (36 starts in one season was a career high) and the past two years, he showed up at midseason. His argument that he wouldn't use something bad for him is undercut by his admission that he popped painkillers like candy. Oh, and no reason to take a lie detector test because no one would believe him anyway.

And the logic just keeps getting better. The fact that Andy Pettite admitted to using HGH is separate from Clemens situation. Just because Pettite was Clemens' close friend and workout partner who was accused by the same person of doing the same thing as Clemens is no reason to think that they are in any way related. And I loved Clemens' argument that The Trainer was lying about Clemens' steroid use to stay out of jail. Let's see. The Trainer has rolled to the feds about his steroid dealing. They tell him that he can talk to the baseball investigators on the condition that his testimony matches what he told them because if it doesn't, he perjured himself. So, either the feds are out to get Clemens (that's the follow-up question that a non-senile, competent interviewer would have asked) or they reward perjury by reducing prison time. Now, how can I possibly believe Clemens is lying?

I've mentioned before how meaningless the Iowa caucus is. Yet, people began reading a bunch into Barak Obama's win there. Sure, it showed he was a viable candidate (but that should have been common sense), but people got so stupid to the point there was real speculation (by people who should know better) that Hillary Clinton was going to drop out and predictions of a double digit win in New Hampshire for Obama although that was based on polling. That double digit loss actually became a three point win for Clinton when votes there were actually counted. I'm not real clear why polls are still taken as gospel since they've had a tendency to be horribly inaccurate in several recent elections. My theory is that a lot of people now use cell phones exclusively which cannot be cold called by pollsters.

But I digress. Thinking any of the early votes mean much is foolish. It's not even a small state thing. Michigan's a big state, but it just had one of the most pointless primaries of all. To begin with, the Republicans have an open primary which means anyone can vote in it. Democrats have a tendency to muck things up by crossing over for laughs. More could do that this year since most of the Democratic candidates dropped out because the Michigan delegates won't count due to a snit with the party. In fact, Florida was stripped of their delegates, too. That means the Democrats will not be seating delegates from the 4th and 8th largest states out of deference to Iowa and New Hampshire. Friggin' brilliant. Wait for Super Tuesday when lots of delegates are at stake.

Now, that's not to say the primaries aren't interesting. On the Republican side, you wonder if Mike Huckabee will ever come out with a policy position that he actually thought about for more than 30 seconds or will John McCain began to take a giant cross on the road to hang from when he begins to feel especially persecuted. Then the Democratic race got cute when race became a factor. You know it wasn't that long ago that THE BLACK LEADERSHIP was questioning whether Barak Obama was "black enough" due to not having risen through the ranks of the mainstream civil rights movement and probably because he was raised by his white grandparents. Now, they've apparently noticed that's still blacker than a white woman from an affluent Chicago suburb. Supposedly race wasn't going to matter after Obama won the very white Iowa Caucus, but then accusations flew that he lost New Hampshire because voters there had the anonymity of the voting booth so they could let their inner racism flow and pull the lever for the white candidate. In Iowa, you vote by standing under your candidate's sign. On the flip side, that could mean Obama's Iowa numbers were inflated because in a fit of White Guilt, many caucus goers were afraid they would be considered racists if they stood under someone else's sign. After all, it is the Democratic caucus. Of course, Hillary's surge of support came almost exclusively from single women, so that must mean single women are inherently racist.

NFL Divisional Round - Sunday Picks

San Diego @ Indianapolis
The Chargers did beat the Colts in week 8. They still have LaDanian Tomlinson. That's about all I see in their favor. The win certainly wasn't tainted, but it wasn't something that gives me confidence they'll do it again. The Colts were on the road in San Diego a week after their loss to New England. They also were without several players who were hurt. Almost all will be back for this one and it will be in Indianapolis. In that game, Peyton Manning threw six interceptions. Yet, the Chargers still needed the Colts to miss a field goal with a minute and a half left to hold them off.

That's not the only reason I'm not picking the Chargers. They looked like crap against a Tennessee Titans team that was playing without a quarterback. Technically, Vince Young is a quarterback, but he doesn't act like one on the field. That Titans team barely squeaked by the Colts' backups in week 17 even though they needed to win to make the playoffs. Frankly, last week's performance by San Diego was slightly uninspiring. And how happy would you be if your team was in the playoffs and Norv Turner was your coach? While I'm not a big Tony Dungy fan, he's better than Turner. Plus, rumor on the street is Dungy could very well be retiring at the end of the season. I'm sure his players have heard and will probably have a little extra motivation. So, do I think the Chargers can win? Sure, if Manning throws six interceptions. Since he does that very infrequently, I'm taking the Colts.

New York Giants @ Dallas
Some big controversy going on. Dallas quarterback Tony Romo spent the bye week in Mexico with Jessica Simpson. This was after he completely crapped himself while playing the Eagles in front of her. What exactly is there about her that is supposed to screw up his game? Is she Kryptonite? Did she break his junk or something? I do understand the criticism of him being in Mexico even though it's a bye week. This is the playoffs. Don't lose focus especially when you finished the season rather poorly. Kind of like not losing focus when a ball is hiked to you for a game winning field goal.

Now, teammate Jason Witten came to Romo's defense because he was actually down in Mexico with them and ...............wait a second. I see what's going on. Romo and Witten are homos. This Jessica Simpson thing is just a scam to cover their flaming affair. Sure, she's still hot, but her last movie went straight to video and I'm not sure she sings anymore. Actually, I'm not really sure what she sang before, but my guess is that it qualifies as music. So, it's not surprising that she could be looking for a little publicity by hooking up with a potential NFL Super Bowl quarterback. And she was married to some dude in a boy band so she's used to being around guys with ambiguous sexuality. It's a win-win for everyone. She gets some face time on a national broadcast. Romo gets to hide his love of buggery.

Anyway, back to the game. I think at full strength the Cowboys are clearly superior to the Giants. That's why they won twice during the regular season. There's been talk that Terrell Owens will be a game time decision due to a sore ankle, but I think everyone knows that the biggest media pimp won't take a chance on missing a playoff game. I think quarterback is the key. Everyone should know by now that I have a healthy disrespect for Eli Manning's big game play, but I don't hold Romo's any higher. As the season went on, he didn't play well. His only previous playoff experience ended with the fumbled snap, but he really hadn't done anything up to that point. So, whichever quarterback doesn't screw up in the fourth quarter will win. I'll go with the Cowboys.

NFL Divisional Round - Saturday Picks

Seattle @ Green Bay
This the game with all the subplots (which we see so much of the time). The West Coast offense isn't used that much anymore, but here's a matchup of two of them. Brett Favre is facing Mike Holmgren who coached Favre to his only Super Bowl appearances. Matt Hasselbeck playing against the team that he started with. Seattle thinks they have better polka dancing than Green Bay. Okay, I made one of those up. There's been a lot made of the fact that the last time Hasselbeck was in a playoff game in Green Bay, the Seahawks won the overtime coin toss leading to Hasselbeck's proclamation (via the ref's microphone) that "we want the ball and we're going to score." Then the Packers won on an interception returned for a touchdown. To be honest, I thought Hasselbeck got a bad rap for making the statement. If you're a fan of a team, would you prefer that your quarterback announce he wants the ball, but expects to lose?

Actually, I don't think Seattle will lose because Hasselbeck will say something stupid. I think they'll lose for various other reasons. For one, I think Green Bay's defense is a bit better (although not much). I also think Seattle's running game is flat atrocious. It's ironic because they have the big name (and do-nothing) back in Shaun Alexander, and Green Bay was once seen as a long shot Super Bowl contender due to a lack of running game. However, Ryan Grant has given them a solid option there. However, the main reason that I'm picking Green Bay is because Seattle sucks on the road. They're 3-5 with wins over non-playoff teams San Francisco, St. Louis and Philly. They've also got losses on the road to non-playoff teams Arizona, Cleveland, Carolina and Atlanta. The only playoff team they faced on the road was Pittsburgh with a 21-0 loss. I don't see them suddenly being better in Green Bay.

Jacksonville @ New England
A lot of people don't seem to be giving Jacksonville a chance. They're a 13 point underdog (huge for a playoff game). I think I saw Merrill Hoge predict a 44-17 score. Now, I'm not saying the Patriots can't blow out Jacksonville. I've seen too many teams this year play scared against New England and let the game get out of control (see Washington in week 8). One area of weakness for the Jaguars has been pass defense where they were mid-pack all season. That isn't a good weakness against a team that throws a ton. Plus, there is the fact that in two games against the Steelers, the Jags got a big lead and let Pittsburgh back into it. While David Garrard has played mostly error free football this year for Jacksonville, he had two crucial interceptions last week. New England is good at exploiting those.

Now, on the other hand, I think Jacksonville has a good shot. Defensively, the Jags may not be that great against the pass, but they do get a lot of sacks. They also like to knock the Hell out of you. Physical teams have given the Patriots problems in the past. On offense, Garrard isn't a gunslinger type of quarterback, but that isn't bad thing. Game managers (think AJ Feeley ), even lousy ones (thing Kyle Boller) had some success against the Patriots. Plus, Garrard can take off and run which is the key for them. New England's rush defense was ranked 10th in the league, but that's average yards per game which is skewed by how many teams abandoned the run against the Patriots because they were down early. Only four teams gave up more yards per carry than the Patriots. The Patriots can be run on. I think Jacksonville will cover the 13 point spread, but am I willing to pick a Jaguar win? Sure. Why not? I think the Jags do it.

The Week In Review

Perfect night to write this week's review up. I can drink and watch the BCS Championship Game while I'm doing it at my leisure. Hey, Chris Wells just busted a 65 yard touchdown run to put Ohio State up 7-0. In the process, he outran safety Craig Steltz who I'm convinced is the worst All-American I have ever seen. I wonder who thought Chris Wells could be a key?

The political season certainly brings out the........well, let's call them the semi-retarded candidates. One in particular, who I will forever call The Pride Of Georgia (non-Jimmy Carter Division), decided to live on a 300 foot scaffold "for days" to call attention to something-or-other. I wasn't really paying that much attention. Let me go back and check. Right, he's saying "that politicians should pay more attention to the concerns of working people and less to those of wealthy corporate interests." In this case, their concern could be that some idiot is close to falling off a tower. Actually, what I find humorous is that he's supporting working people by not actually working and opposing corporate interests by climbing a tower named after a billboard company which sounds pretty corporate to me.

Now, here's a candidate who interests me. The mayor (female of course) of some podunk town in Oregon is catching heat for posting a lingerie shot of herself on her Myspace page. Actually, she's not too bright since she's claiming that the picture was from before she was mayor and "personal". Except it was taken at the fire department where her regular job as secretary is. I'm not real sure that taking risque photos on a fire truck is normal policy.

A Star Trek fan is suing Christie's auction house for fraud. He bought a poker visor used by some android on the Next Generation show (that I never watched) for 6 grand and was apparently told by the guy playing the android (who apparently has nothing else to do) that it's a fake. He also paid $16,000 more for a table from the set and a uniform. The Trekkie says he's humiliated. He should be. Not because an auction house gypped him. He should be embarrassed for spending $22K for a poker visor, table and cheesy Star Trek uniform.

Just for the record, I have not been on a plane in about a year.

Oh, Ladies. Marilyn Manson is back on the market. That is if you're interested in a crappy musical "artist" who has to be "shocking" in order to sell albums and look like a carnival sideshow freak so people aren't aware how really unattractive he is. Now, if he's not your cup of tea, Bud from Married With Children is also available.

Game note. LSU is pulling away. Ohio State needs to open things up again. Their QB is making some good passes. Give him a chance.

Now, here's a really crap story. Some idiot woman decided to "help" her daughter win Hannah Montana tickets by writing an essay detailing how the poor child's father died in Iraq. When it was discovered that her father had not died in Iraq (or at all), this bitch went on The Today Show to "apologize" (and freak me out with her eyebrows). Apparently her original position, "We wrote whatever we could to win", wasn't going over well. Her "apology" probably isn't going to do too well either since it seems to follow the "I'm sorry I got caught" agenda. Oh, and she didn't mean to "mislead" because a flat out lie isn't in any way misleading. Oh, and she didn't have the tickets taken away from her. She refused them. Roger Clemens is more believable. Even better, the dumbass is playing victim. She had to take down her MySpace page. OH, THE HORROR. NO MYSPACE FOR HER. She's just a stupid, callous, conniving bitch who took what is a tragedy for other people and exploited it. Personally, I find it a good case for waterboarding.

Here's a story that should be about young girls, but it's not. Hello Kitty is now marketing clothing to young men in Japan. Nice quote in the article. "That generation feels no embarrassment about wearing Hello Kitty." Well, if they're dudes, they should.

Considering how stupid the media can be about anthrax, I'm surprised the death of several Afghanis from it wasn't trumpeted as a major news story. Some people are unaware that anthrax is naturally occurring. Now, when I read this story, I was originally struck by the level of stupidity. If your camel is so sick that no one will buy it, why the Hell would you eat it yourself? Then came my next thought. What does camel taste like?

England. Where criminals aren't really criminals. There have been countless stories about how citizens aren't supposed to fight back against robbers or attackers. Well, now the cops are actually telling a woman that if she improves her home security, they'll arrest her if someone breaking in gets hurt. Really. It's true. I guess in a warped namby pamby European way it makes sense. It's probably easier to catch the home owner than the burglar. Why waste time doing the hard work? It's not like the English police aren't proficient at arresting middle age women.

Which wreck is worse? Driving onto a railroad track because you're listening to your GPS system or wrecking because you're trying to avoid a pterodactyl? I don't have a GPS system, but my guess is that when it tells you to turn right, you turn right at the next road. Not immediately turn right, especially if that turn puts you on a railroad track. Still, I'm leaning towards the pterodactyl story because they've been extinct for quite some time.

I saw in the paper that higher education in Kentucky are concerned about budget cuts. Well, if they are like other colleges and universities, they could cut some of the stupidity out and save a ton of money. I recently read about a column by a Philosophy professor who wants a ban (I'm assuming government) on certain hedge trimmers and Hummers (the driving kind). Not to keep people like me who aren't environmentally conscious from having them. No, he doesn't have the self-control to keep from buying them himself, so he wants them banned. At least he was expressing his personal opinion in a non-university funded forum. Unlike a researcher-slash-dumbass at Hebrew University who did a study on why the Israeli Defense Force didn't have organized rape of Arab women. Her conclusion? Israeli men don't rape Arab women because they have a conscious political objective not to enlarge the Arab population (contrary to historical precedent of many invaders raping women as a way of establishing a foothold among a population). It certainly couldn't be that Israeli society frowns upon rape. I don't know for certain, but my guess is that it's illegal there. Maybe they should institute laws like other countries. Where women who are rape victims might be sentenced to jail and lashings. Maybe then Israeli soldiers will feel compelled to rape Arab women.

And finally, there's the Spears family. America's answer to .........well, they're actually pretty unique. I didn't feel like mentioning the Jamie Lynn Spears story because I wasn't really aware who she was or what the Hell Zoey 101 was. Besides, whats one more pregnant 16 year old from Clodkicker, Louisiana. Sure, she's a complete moron. You're getting paid good money to star in some stupid teenager show. What would be the worst thing that could harm that job. Maybe getting pregnant? Short of crystal meth face, you can hide a drug addiction offscreen, but the baby gut might be a giveaway. Still, wasn't that interested. Then two things were reported (that may or may not be true due to the fact it comes from tabloids, but are certainly funny). First, sister Britney was hospitalized as bi-polar/serial nutsack after the SWAT team had to be called when she wigged out and held her children hostage. A report says her jealousy about the coverage her little sister's pregnancy was a major factor in the meltdown. Then came the report that her somewhat-legal-to-knock-up-a-16-year-old boyfriend isn't really the father. It's some executive of her TV show. Is this not the biggest white trash family ever? William Faulkner couldn't come up with this story. Why do I get the feeling that Kevin Federline will eventually get custody of Jamie Lynn's baby too just so it has a chance at a normal life?

BCS Title Game

Before getting into why I'm picking who I'm picking, I left out the most fun that came from watching the Music City Bowl at Phil's house. Florida State has a wide receiver named De' Cody Fagg. Nothing brings out the juvenile humor like a funny name. I'm surprised he hasn't thought about changing it. But I guess he likes the name De' Cody.

On to the BCS Championship Game between Ohio State and LSU. Ohio State is number one in the BCS rankings and pretty much every poll. Which is obviously why LSU is about a 4 point favorite. This is based on a couple of things. One is the belief that the SEC is much better than the Big 10. Another is the fact that Ohio State was absolutely destroyed by Florida in the BCS Championship Game last year. I pretty much was feeling the same way when the bowl season started, but some things are making me rethink those assumptions.

Let's start with the second assumption that Ohio State found out last year that they can't compete with a top SEC team. Well, that was last year. Ohio State got drubbed 41-14 by Florida, but the game just got out of hand late, and we have two different teams. To begin with, LSU isn't as good as last year's Florida team. There's been a lot of talk about LSU's defense, but Florida 2006 was better. The most points scored against that team was 28 by #11 Arkansas. LSU is doing things like giving up 34 to a piss poor Alabama and 24 to a really weak Ole Miss. I don't see the domination that we were supposed to have out of LSU this year. Plus, LSU isn't remotely as good at quarterback as Florida was. Tim Tebow won the Heisman this year, but he was second string last year behind Chris Leak who had a big game against Ohio State.

It's not just the SEC team that's different. Ohio State is. I didn't think Troy Smith was all that good (giving him the Heisman was a joke) last year, and he proved it against Florida as he completed 4 out of 14 passes. I think this year's starter, Todd Boeckman, is better than Smith was. But that's not the only change on offense. Last year, the Buckeyes had Antonio Pittman as their lead runner. He was very good. Chris Wells is even better. I thought he should have played more last year. And it's not just offensively. Ohio State's defense is better. Still, is it enough for a 27 point swing?

Now, onto the other assumption that the SEC is so much better than the Big 10. I certainly thought so. And I still think it's better, but is it that much better? I'm not so sure after watching the bowl games. The SEC has won, but the reality is they haven't dominated anything. Two wins against mid-major teams (three if you consider Colorado a mid-major). Even against other BCS teams, most were squeakers even if the other team was missing half its team. If the lower level teams weren't dominating lower level teams from other conferences, the assumption is the best of the SEC won't dominate the best of another conference. The two bowl games that made me completely rethink this were the Capital One Bowl (MICH 41 F:A 35) and Cotton Bowl (Missou 38 ARK 7). The Capital One Bowl was the lower level version of the BCS Title Game with SEC speed versus Big 10 Brawn. Brawn won and more convincingly than the score indicated. The Cotton Bowl had Arkansas in their first game since running all over LSU, and they were completely shut down by Missouri (I don't want to hear about them having an interim coach; see Fiesta Bowl).

So, I have to say I don't see the SEC dominance being what it was originally thought which means we have to look at motivation. Which team wants it more. LSU does have some motivation. They were hot at the start of the season and were supposed to dominate the rest of the season, but they really stumbled late. A big win changes the perception about them. On the other hand, I think Ohio State definitely wants to prove last year's title game was a fluke. In BCS title games, it began with the clear favorite winning. Then came 2003 when defending champion Miami was expected to dominate Ohio State, but lost (on a really bad pass interference call). Then Oklahoma was favored over LSU and lost. Southern Cal re-established the favorite winning the next year, but then got beat the next year by clear underdog Texas. Then last year, Ohio State was a big favorite and lost. So, in recent years, when a team is expected to lose, they don't. That certainly favors Ohio State.

Is all that enough to make me think Ohio State can pull out a win? Tough call. The problem is that coach Jim Tressel may not loosen up enough and throw caution to the wind (that's what Michigan did) which I think would help. A conservative gameplan is asking for trouble. What is making me lean towards Ohio State is the bowl records. LSU looked shaky all year against SEC teams who didn't look that good against teams on the same level or below. Obviously with several weeks off to prepare, LSU could focus enough to take down anyone. However, I'm going out on a limb (not really since I'm not putting money on the game) and taking Ohio State in an upset.

Best of the Bowls

Third quarter of a tight Orange Bowl between Kansas and Virginia Tech. At this point, I'm 17-11 on my previous picks. And I'm pissed while watching the halftime of the Orange Bowl. The musical act was ZZ Top. When I was there last year, we got Gladys Knight. She wasn't too bad (although I would much prefer ZZ Top), but the real problem was that American Idol nutsack, Taylor Hicks, also performed. Showing his staying power, he's dropped from doing Orange Bowls to a much lower tiered Liberty Bowl.

The SEC was doing well early, and still is I guess at 6-2. However, they took a couple of shots on the 1st. I figured Arkansas would lose to Missouri, but they were dominated so bad that they only scored one touchdown. Then Florida was smacked around by Michigan. They needed Michigan to fumble twice inside Florida's five yard line just to stay within a touchdown. This one hurt because this was the classic "SEC Speed" against "Big 10 Brawny But Slothy" that the SEC is supposed to dominate in. I thought it was a killer matchup for Michigan, but they pulled it out. Because of that, I don't really see a marquee win for the SEC. The best win was Auburn (who I didn't like) needing overtime to beat Clemson (who I didn't like either). Tennessee was the SEC East champion, but won a squeaker over Wisconsin (4th in Big 10). Miss. St. beat a CUSA team. Alabama beat Colorado, but neither deserved to be there. Kentucky looked real good barely beating a Florida State team missing half its players. Georgia over Hawaii? Told you it could be a laugher.

Yet, in the SEC's defense, no other looks too dominant either. The Big 12 had potential until Oklahoma lost to West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl. Until then, they were looking pretty good with their only losses being pretty. Texas A&M lost to Penn State (losing to Penn State in a bowl is never bad), and Colorado lost to Bama (in a bowl that never should have happened). They had two of the better wins with Texas over Arizona State and Missou over Arkansas. Now, that Arizona State beatdown to Texas is why I can't really put the PAC-10 over anyone. Take that away and they look good at 4-2 (smaller conference, fewer bowl teams) with two big margin wins by Southern Cal over Illinois and Oregon over South Florida. Their other loss (UCLA to BYU) wasn't too bad, but Arizona State was hammered.

The fact that Southern Cal and Georgia both absolutely destroyed their opponents once again shows how stupid the Rose Bowl was. I hope they're happy with a snoozer of a game by putting Illinois against Southern Cal. This could have been one of the best games of the year, but we didn't get it.

I've been kind of curious who the Sugar Bowl would have picked if the Rose Bowl had taken Georgia. The BCS rules state that no more than two teams from one conference can play in the five BCS bowls. Plus, at large teams have to be in the top 14 of the BCS standings. With Kansas and Georgia taken as an at large, that means no more Big 12 (Missouri) or SEC (Florida) teams could go. I doubt they would have taken Illinois (not everyone is that stupid), but the only other choice was Arizona State or Boston College. The Sugar Bowl was probably lucky to get Georgia who would bring a good fanbase.

Not that the Sugar Bowl was a good game. I didn't think it would be. Hawaii just wasn't good enough to play in a BCS game. That's not looking at strength of schedule or statistics. That's from watching them play this season. Obviously Hawaii was better off monetarily by playing in the Sugar Bowl with the huge payouts. However, I think it was bad overall for them. Getting dominated that much isn't going to help small conference teams in voting in coming years which may or may not be fair (the Big 10 wasn't penalized for Ohio State's thumping last year nor will they be for Illinois' beatdown this year). It wasn't just the team. Colt Brennan's draft status has to be devastated by this performance. The knock on Brennan was his big numbers were the result of being a "system quarterback", and his performance reinforced that knock. In the Hawaii system, he usually makes a quick pass to an open receiver. That's a lot easier against a WAC defense than it is against a top BCS conference team. When his first option was shut down, he looked lost. He also struggled greatly to figure out where the pass rush was coming from. I think he drops in the draft based on this game.

Hawaii had the worst performance by a non-BCS team. The worst performance by a BCS team was Oklahoma. Sure, Illinois and Arkansas looked worse, but they didn't have as much to lose. And I didn't think either would show up anyway. Besides, Illinois won two games last year. The Rose Bowl was just a nice capper to the season. Oklahoma lost a lot. They were number three in the AP poll before the end of the season which means if they spanked West Virginia and LSU barely squeaked by Ohio State in an ugly game, AP voters may put Oklahoma number one (Point of Fact: I have always argued since the conferences have agreed on the BCS system, a conference member cannot claim a national title if they finish first in the AP poll but don't win the BCS Championship game). Yet, Oklahoma crapped on themselves. Coach Bob Stoops' rep also took a hit because he's lost he past four BCS bowl games. Which is silly because in that time he's also won the Holiday Bowl, and before the streak began he had won the Orange and Rose Bowls (including a national title).

The best performance by a BCS squad was the West Virginia beating Oklahoma. To begin with, Brokeback Mountaineer fans were in a state of depression. First, they lost to Pitt in their final game when a win would have put them in the title game. Then, their coach left and pissed off the entire fan base. Beating Oklahoma decisively has to be the best Christmas present that team could have given to their toothless, inbred fans. Not only did it give them a good finish to the year, but it gave them hope for the future. Interim coach Bill Stewart was given the permanent position the very next day. Talk about your crash audition. He wasn't even being talked about as a possible candidate before the game (although I wondered when they didn't hire anyone before the bowl whether they were waiting to see what he could do). Frankly, he deserved it. It wasn't the highest scoring game by the Mountainqueers this year, but it was highest against a good defense. And only giving up 28 points to a good offense like Oklahoma was pretty nice too.

God, I missed going to a bowl game this year. Not that it wasn't huge fun to watch the UK bowl game at Phil's and have the following:
1. Jon screaming at Micah Johnson to fall down after a late interception (something about those UK players fumbling game-sealing interceptions
2. Dickie telling about his past suicidal thoughts over peeing too much when all he needed was Flomax
3. Brett getting drunk before I did and making monkey noises. That's not a racist remark. It was about a Richard Pryor show. Brett, if you're reading, the DVD is simply Richard Pryor Live In Concert
4. Phil doing Phil things. Actually, I wasn't paying too much attention to Phil, but I'm sure he did something that I should be making fun of.

Kansas just won the Orange Bowl. That makes me 18-11 overall. I've still got two BS bowls (Rutgers in the International and Tulsa in the GMAC) and the BCS title game (pick coming this weekend). It also gives the Big 12 three good wins. Still, I'll have to crunch some numbers before deciding which conference did best.

NFL Wildcard Games

As I wait for the end of the New Year's Day college games, I'll switch gears and look at the NFL Wildcard games this weekend.

Redskins @ Seahawks
I'm taking the Redskins in an upset. It's a Todd Collins' world. We're just living in it. It's not really Collins, but the way the team has played since he came in. They have gutted out a lot of games that were "must-win". They've done it by running well, playing really good defense and not having mistakes at the quarterback position. If the game comes down to toughness, Seattle won't win. Sure, they went 10-6, but looking at their schedule, they only played two eventual playoff teams - beat Tampa 20-6 and were shut out by Pittsburgh 21-0. Matt Hasselbeck has had a great passing season for them, but he still has some consistency problems. The defense is pretty good, but mostly against bad competition, and their running game is horrible (as the person who wasted a first round pick on Shaun Alexander, I know this well). Maybe I just can't get over them losing 13-10 to Carolina while facing a rookie no-name quarterback making his first start.

Jaguars @ Steelers
As much as it pains me to say it, I think Jacksonville beats Pittsburgh. The Steelers have lost their best running back, Willie Parker, to injury and don't have another with his game breaking ability. They had already lost their starting left tackle, and now they've lost his backup. They lost to Jacksonville at home with those guys a few weeks ago. I don't think the Jags have gotten worse since then. Plus, I don't trust the Pittsburgh coaching staff to come up with a brilliant game plan. After all, they had a shot at the three seed in the final week of the season, but sat several starters which pretty much guaranteed they'd lose to Baltimore. As a three seed, they'd be facing a weaker Tennessee team in the first round, but they didn't even try. Real friggin' smart.

Giants @ Buccaneers
The Giants certainly showed up to play against New England in week 17 even though they had nothing to play for. I think they did it because they wanted to go into the playoffs on a high note which they probably got from a close loss to the Patriots. Still, I'm picking Tampa to take this one. There are things I can say to justify it. Tampa plays really good defense at home. Bucs QB Jeff Garcia is an ultimate "game manager" quarterback who knocked the Giants out of the playoffs last year when he was with Philly. Those don't matter since the Giants actually play better on the road (7-1), and Garcia had more talent on his Eagles' team last year than he does with Tampa this year. No, the reason I'm picking Tampa is personal prejudice. I think Giants' quarterback Eli Manning sucks. Look at the talent on the Giants. They've had a strong defense for years, a solid running game, one of the best tight ends and quality receivers. Yet, no playoff wins with Eli at QB. Eli is one of those quarterbacks who can put up some numbers and make you think he's getting there, but I would never put any money on him to win at crunch time. He's also shockingly inaccurate. A lot of quarterbacks throw interceptions because of bad decisions (ie trying to force the ball to a covered receiver), but a lot of Eli's interceptions are due to him missing the receiver completely. The New England game is a perfect example of the Eli Manning game. He played good early on when all the pressure was on the Patriots. Then the Patriots take the lead and the pressure is on Eli to respond. He missed his receiver so badly that it was intercepted by a defensive back not even covering the receiver. He'll find a way to screw this one up.

Titans @ Chargers
After a slow start to their season, the Chargers are rolling. After a slow start to their season, the Titans have squeaked into the playoffs. Their offense is horrible. The Titans faced a must-win game in week 17 against the Colts who took their starters out in the first half. Yet, Tennessee needed three second half field goals to win 16-10. And they did better (although not much) with backup Kerry Collins in the game. Not the type of play that normally inspires me to think they can go into San Diego and win. Take the Chargers.