Conference Championships

Got to love the conference championships. Mainly because they usually aren't that close, but we still pretend the loser was the second best team. I’m picking the teams that I want to win. The NFC is easy. While I’m a Steelers fan, I’ve always liked the Bears because they had my favorite player (Walter Payton) and coach (Mike Ditka) of all time. Plus, the trainwreck potential of Rex Grossman should get at least another chance to run off the tracks. The AFC is a bit harder, because I don’t like either team and will end up rooting for the NFC winner no matter what. But since they both can’t lose, I guess I’m rooting for the Patriots. A lot of people apparently are rooting for Peyton Manning to make the Super Bowl because he seems like a nice guy. He isn’t. He also played at Tennessee and I hate Tennessee. Plus, if he keeps losing, maybe those smarmy commercials he does every 10 seconds will go away. So, I do get a perverse pleasure in seeing him fail miserably every year. My worst fear is a Colts/Saints Super Bowl because the Saints in the Super Bowl alone would lead to overkill on the hurricane recovery human interest stories, but the Colts would add the Manning family who are from New Orleans. The only good that could come from it would be if favorite son Peyton Manning killed the New Orleans feel good story. Would they hate him for that in the bayou?

Now, why do I think the Patriots will win? A lot of people think this is the year that the Colts (and Peyton) break through and make the Super Bowl. I’m not really sure why. The Patriots do have problems. The Colts beat them the last two times they met. The Pats needed every break to win at San Diego last week. Their top playoff receiver didn’t join the team until October. The new definition for “clutch” when talking about Tom Brady is hoping his latest interception is fumbled. Still, what do the Colts have going for them? This team isn’t as good as past teams that flopped in the playoffs. Their two wins over the Pats in recent years were regular season, not the playoffs. I’m not just waiting for the Colts to prove they can beat New England in the playoffs. I’m waiting for them to show they can stay close to the Patriots in the playoffs. The Pats may have needed breaks to be the Chargers, but they still did it and the Chargers are better than the Colts. Even with seemingly unproven receivers, the Patriots have been more efficient offensively. Brady may be showing cracks in his “clutch” playoff performances, but Peyton Manning has never stepped up big when it counts.

However, the main difference is coaching. Tony Dungy has won two playoff games this year, but he had an advantage of facing mental midgets. I don’t like Bill Belichick. I think he’s a dick. I didn’t need LaDanian Tomlinson to tell me Belichick has no class. Going back to the Bernie Kosar situation in Cleveland, screaming obscenities at Pittsburgh trainers, breaking up marriages, and making an ass of himself earlier in the season when he treated a former assistant like crap. Still, you can't argue with success. He doesn't shrink in the playoffs, so until the Colts can prove me wrong, no way do I take them over the Patriots.

Now, as to why I think the Bears will win; I have start with the fact that I’m biased. I am swimming against the current on this one. All eight “experts” for ESPN.com picked the Saints to win this weekend. Probably because they want the Saints to win which is the “great story” of how the Saints improbable run inspired a city to rise above the crime, filth and corruption that has become New Orleans. Actually, that pretty much describes pre-hurricane New Orleans too. I’ve often (well, not that often) wondered why no one was rooting for the University of Southern Mississippi to at least win Conference USA in football. The Mississippi coast got hammered by Katrina, but nobody gives a crap about them. But I digress. The main reason that I’m picking against the Saints is because everyone else is picking them. When the bandwagon gets that crowded, you have to take a step back.

Now, why else is everyone picking against the Bears. You’ve got the Good Rex/Bad Rex factor. Their defense hasn’t been that good since Mike Brown and Tommie Harris went down with injuries. Even with Decent Rex showing up last week, they struggled to knock off Seattle. Big deal. Seattle was a Super Bowl team that knew what to do in the playoffs. The Bears hadn’t won a playoff game since I was in college, so they just wanted to get over the hump which they did. Say what you will about the Bears, but they’ve overcome every bad game they’ve played to get the best record in the conference. Besides, it’s not like the Saints looked that great against Philadelphia last week. Now they get to go from New Orleans to Chicago in January. Good luck with the snow.

Divisional Playoff Recap

I've come to the conclusion why Bill Belichick has been so successful in the playoffs. The AFC is full of coaches who somehow haven't figured playing not to lose isn't going to get you a win in the playoffs. The only reason Tony Dungy is in the AFC Championship game is because Bill Belichick and Eric Mangini are the only non-retards coaching AFC team in the playoffs this year, and Dungy got to face two of them.

Colts over Ravens
I freely admit my mistake on this one. I neglected the Brian Billick factor. He's a coach who was hired as an "offensive genius", but has always won at Baltimore with defense compensating for piss poor offenses. I should have known I was in trouble when they said Billick thought he could game plan against the Colts' defense. Any time Billick "coaches", they lose. The year he won the 2000 Super Bowl, it was with Trent Dilfer who he apparently couldn't coach because he never wanted to play him. He dumped him after the season for the incomparable Elvis Grbac and has won exactly one playoff game since. Game plan should have been to let the offense run like normal (protect the ball and be efficient) and assume that Peyton Manning will screw up. Well, Manning screwed up his second game in a row as the Colts scored zero touchdowns, and he finished with a 39.6 passer rating and two interceptions (should have been five). Yet, it didn't matter because with two weeks to work with moderately efficient quarterback Steve McNair, Billick turned him into crapjob Kyle Boller. His favorite play became don't move, focus on one receiver and throw the ball behind him.

Saints over Eagles
Can't call this one a mistake. It was a three point game which could have gone either way. While Deuce McAllister had a huge game, I'm sure if I go look at the recaps, Reggie Bush will have a better writeup without having the better game. Philadelphia coach came in with a good game plan, but I think he made a mistake near the end. The Eagles were facing 4th and 10 from their 44 with less than 2 minutes left. The plan was to go for it, but they had a false start to make it 4th and 15, so they punted. I say go for it. If you make it, your in their territory. Now, the Eagles had three timeouts left, but if New Orleans gets a first down, they can run out the clock. Based on McAllister's running all day, that seemed a good possibility (and what happened). Even if you hold them and they punt, you've lost time and are back where you started. Actually, at the 39, if you turned the ball over on downs, then stop them, more than likely their punt goes into the endzone, so all you are saving is 19 yards. The only other item of note from this game is that some chick was wearing a shirt with a dirty expression on it which I found on another website (which cleaned it up slightly and conveniently didn't copyright it). Apparently, said shirt made it into the Fox broadcast.

Bears over Seahawks
It was certainly nice to see Shaun Alexander playing well. Of course, based on his track record, he was probably thinking about that extra game check. Good news for Chicago was "Bad Rex" didn't show up. He did lose a fumble that was costly, but his interception was a bobble by the receiver and Chicago got it right back. He also had a great pass for a 68 yard touchdown, but drifted off in the second half. At least until overtime when he threw a 30 yard strike to get them near field goal range. Bad news for Chicago is there defense continued a trend of not playing too well. They've won games when Rex Grossman self destructed, but there's got to be a concern that they needed an overtime field goal to win a game where Grossman played well. Actually, he played better than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Of course, Steve McNair was the only quarterback to play worse than Manning.

Patriots over Chargers
What friggin' joke. Marty Schottenheimer should have been fired the moment he walked off the field. The Chargers had the Patriots on the ropes and went to Martyball instead of going for the jugular. Guess what happens when you let your opponent hang around? Their good plays become magnified, and so does your own stupidity. The Chargers already had a lot to overcome. Eric Parker's complete inability to hang onto a ball. Dropped passes galore. The third quarter had the obligatory bad call that New England seems to get in their favor every year. After a great defensive play, one of the Chargers got into the face of a Patriot, gets a two handed shove and somehow the Charger was called for unnecessary roughness. Now, Troy "Too Many Concussions" Aikman said he was trying to head butt the Patriot, but "trying" is the operative word because I didn't see any contact nor would it even matter. As long as the Patriot retaliates, he is flagged also. Therefore it should have been offsetting penalties. Not that I expected Aikman or Joe Schmuck to mention that because they are among the cadre of announcers who would pay money to crawl into Bill Belichick's jock. Still, even with those problems, the Chargers should have been in good shape. They weren't. Marty just needed time to get into playoff mode which came in the second half. Going to Martyball would have been bad enough, but I think a chimp could have done better clock management. It was bad luck when Marlon McCree fumbled after a fourth quarter interception (hey, a UK player fumbling a possible game clinching interception, how often does that happen) to give New England a first down, but it was coaching incompetence to waste a timeout on a challenge when it was obvious it was a fumble. On their next series, they had to burn another one when they couldn't get the play in. It's late in a close game, maybe those timeouts would be useful. Like when you're trying to drive for a tying field goal with 70 seconds left and you end up attempting one from 54 yards because time is almost out. Yeah, what could two more plays have done for them? Other than maybe get closer.

Hypocrisy In Sports

Steroids in baseball recently popped up again. I first saw a couple of pundits wondering why baseball is ripped by the sporting press for steroids, but NFL players like Shawne Merriman can be voted into the Pro Bowl the same year he was suspended for testing positive for 'roids. The easy answer for one is that the NFL has pretty much legitimized antisocial behavior just as part of the play. A grain of truth to that since doing off the field what they do on it will lead to criminal charges. Plus, why worry about the long term effects of steroids when the long term effects of constant football collisions are probably more damaging. Actually, I've always felt the main reason is baseball writers are a bunch of sanctimonious, pompous asses. They've bought into the Field of Dreams myth that baseball is somehow pure goodness which is surprisingly stupid because Field of Dreams dealt with the real life issue of baseball players taking bribes to throw the World Series. Baseball writers simply did not want to admit that their sport was being sullied by steroids during the home run fueled resurgence in the 90s, and when it became very apparent it was, they felt duped and now there is a backlash from them.

Think of it this way. We knew in the 80s that steroids had run rampant in the NFL during the 70s, and that's why the NFL instituted a ban on them. Baseball was convinced they didn't need one even though suddenly cartoonishly-large baseball players were destroying home run records. Baseball writers just wanted their sport to be relevant again, so it was ignored until Barry Bonds came along and looked like he had eaten another person. Then it was impossible to ignore, and guys like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa went from the heroes who saved baseball to scumbags who dirtied the sport. It most recently manifested itself when McGwire failed miserably in Hall of Fame voting when the common perception during his career was that he was a lock.

So, is it fair to McGwire? Of course not. I've said before that I think steroids should be banned in sports even if players are willing to accept the health risks associated with them. Technically, Tommy John surgery is science enhancing someone's performance, but I don't think players who don't want to take steroid risks should be disadvantaged by making them legal. As for Hall of Fame voting, a couple of baseball voters have said they aren't going to vote for anyone from the "Steroid Era", but that's pretty stupid. To begin with, we can suspect that McGwire was using, but we don't know, and he retired before steroids were banned by baseball in 2002. Besides, it was the "Steroid Era". That means a lot of guys (including pitchers) were probably juiced, so how do you randomly decide who was helped by it? As I said, the NFL was awash in steroids in the 70s, but no one is saying their Hall of Famers from that era should be drummed out.

However, the sheer hypocrisy is the treatment of Dale Murphy. As Jayson Stark made abundantly clear, baseball voters are stupid. I can see how someone can convince you that a player you didn't vote for before may now deserve your vote, but why do so many players begin losing votes each year? If you think they were deserving once, why not anymore? Murphy's vote percentage has dropped each year until he's getting less than 10% which is mind-boggling to me. This guy won two MVP awards and was one of, if not the best player of the 1980s. How can he possibly be getting so little support for the Hall of Fame? In another column, Stark attributes it to the fact that his numbers looked great in the 80s, but no so good compared to more recent players. Excuse me, so McGwire can't get in because his numbers are believed to be inflated by steroids. Yet, Murphy can't get in because his non-steroid enhanced numbers aren't as good as what juiced players were putting up. Does that make sense to anyone?

NFL Playoffs - Divisional Games

Actually, predicting the second round of the NFL playoffs is pretty easy. Home team wins 80% of the time. However, I could make an argument for every visiting team. I still don't trust Baltimore. Philly is rolling into New Orleans as the hottest team in the league. San Diego has a rookie quarterback and Marty Schottenheimer who doesn't lose the "Big One" because he always loses before he gets there. Oh, and you never know whether Rex Grossman is paying attention in Chicago.

AFC
Indianapolis at Baltimore
I’ve said before that I don’t trust Baltimore, but I trust Peyton Manning in the playoffs even less. And of course, I get to be nauseated by all the stories about how horrible it was that the Colts’ left town in the dead of night stealing the pro franchise from Baltimore. I moved outside Baltimore my senior year of high school and spent summers during college there, and those people were still whining years later. Let me put my feelings in a nutshell. The Baltimore Colts weren’t’ drawing fans that last year, the team left at night because the state was looking into seizing the team through eminent domain and you can’t whine about how unfair it is that your team left because you stopped going to games then turn around and take Cleveland’s team that regularly filled the stadium and only moved because of the financial incompetence of the owner. I don’t like the Colts, but after all that crap, I don’t like the Ravens either. I wish they could both lose. However, as far as picks go, I’m taking the Ravens. One, I think the stout Colts’ of last week was an aberration brought about by poor Chief’s coaching. Steve McNair is past his prime, but stack the line on him and he’ll have a field day. Two, I will never trust Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning in a playoff game. Three, while the matchup is being billed as the tough Baltimore defense against the high powered Colts’ offense, I’ve been seeing some cracks in that Colts’ offense to end the season. They struggled last week against a mediocre Kansas City defense that was on the field a lot.

New England at San Diego
This is a playoff game that a lot of things seemed to actually favor the visitors. The Patriots are the experienced playoff team with a coach who is 12-2 in the playoffs and a quarterback who is 11-1. Plus, they are on a nice four game winning streak. On the flip side, San Diego has Marty Schottenheimer and his 5-12 playoff record and reputation for choking. A lot. Plus, Philip Rivers is starting his first playoff game (first time playoff quarterbacks historically don’t do crap), and got a little shaky down the stretch. Still, why am I picking the Chargers? Even though Rivers has been a bit shaky, they still haven’t lost since October. Schottenheimer has given his play calling duties to his offensive coordinator. Plus, I’m not all that sold on the Patriots who were actually played even by the Jets for most of that game. Besides, as far as I know, the Chargers are the only team to have two guys on defense (Shawne Merriman and Luis Castillo) who have tested positive for steroids. God only knows how many on the team are just better at masking it. But it still doesn’t matter because the Chargers have LaDanian Tomlinson. You know, the best player in the game. The guy whose worst game against a Bill Belichick defense was 134 yards and two touchdowns. I think the way Tomlinson and their juiced up defense are playing will be enough to overcome Martyball.

NFC
Seattle at Chicago
Rex Grossman is quite simply the most mind-boggling quarterback I have ever seen. This guy had a game with a zero quarterback rating (but only because they won't go into the negatives). He had another with 1.3 quarterback rating and three more where he couldn’t get to 37. For reference sake, 16 quarterbacks averaged an 80 or more quarterback rating with Peyton Manning leading the league with a 101 average. Yet, Grossman also had the same number of games (7) where he topped 100 in passer rating as Manning did. This is taking the Forrest Gump comment about never knowing what you’ll get in a box of chocolates to an extreme. Actually, I always thought that was a dumb comment. You always knew which piece of chocolate had coconut in it. However, the Grossman equivalent of not knowing what you’ll get is opening a box of chocolate and getting a car transmission. His train wrecks aren’t derailments. He drives the engine into a volcano. I’m surprised he doesn’t have gamblers trying to kill him, because he takes everything out of the equation when the Bears play. One of the games that he broke 100 in rating was when the Bears beat Seattle 37-6, but you know that if "Bad Rex" shows up this week, God only knows what will happen. Still, as much as he scares me, I think the Bears still win. Even with Grossman courting disaster throughout the season, the Bears only lost two meaningful games. And it’s not like the Seahawks have shown me anything considering they needed the Tony Romo flub to win last week. And remember this little factoid, Grossman isn’t the holder on field goal attempts.

Philadelphia at New Orleans
Now this game I find intriguing. The Eagles just beat the Giants by a last second field goal. A couple of weeks before, the Saints beat the Giants by 23. Does that give the edge to the Saints. Possibly. However, the Eagles seem to be doing whatever it takes to win during their hot streak. However, the Saints had been hot for awhile except the 16-10 loss in week 14. Of course, the Saints have been the story of the year because of lingering sympathy for the hurricane ravaged New Orleans. Of course, a lot of residents have spent time since the hurricane trying to wipe out any vestige of sympathy for them. What's the over/under on murders during the game? Murders, fraud and abuse of other's generosity. Pretty much how New Orleans was before the hurricane, and what they exported to other markets. As for the game, common sense tells me the Saints. After all, they got a prolific offense with skilled players everywhere. They've had the better defense all year. Yet, I'm not sure. The Saints receivers have been banged up. But the main reason is Brian Westbrook. Disregard the hype about Reggie Bush. He's not even the best running back on his own team. And neither Bush nor Deuce McAllister is better than Westbrook is right now. I'm picking the Eagles in an upset.

To make it more interesting, I decided to compete against Angus, my surviving pet rat. I would get two peanuts and label them as opposing teams and then offer them to her. Rats love peanuts. They aren't really that excited about cheese, although they are like garbage disposals. They'll eat anything. Based on which peanut she ate, her picks for this round are Baltimore, New England, Philadelphia, and Seattle.

And does anyone want to guess which Toys R Us manager wanted to keep Jennifer Miller around after Christmas because she was young and cute?

A Little More Football

Yes, Jennifer Miller told me that I write too much about football, but I wasn't put on this earth to make people happy (and I've lived down to that expectation). Besides it's the playoffs so expect another post with my picks for the next round soon. After the Super Bowl, I probably won't write that much about football. Except when I blog two entire days of the NFL Draft which is like a second Christmas to me.

Anyway, just a couple of more thoughts about the Tony Romo flub that killed the Cowboys' chances of winning. During the season it made big news when Bill Parcells cut kicker Mike Vanderjagt (basically because he just didn't like him) and brought in Martin Gramatica. Since then, I've been hoping the Cowboys would lose on a bad kick because it would make Parcells look bad which could create dissension on the team which would make them lose which would make me happy because I hate the Cowboys. Now, I didn't get that exactly the way I wanted (outside Dallas losing) because the kicking blunder was the botched hold of Tony "We-Haven't-Won-A-Game-Since-I-Made-The-Pro-Bowl" Romo. However, as the Gregg Easterbrook of Tuesday Morning Quarterback pointed out, having Vanderjagt instead of Gramatica might have changed things. You see, Romo tried to make a play after screwing up in front of God and country. Romo ran for the goal line with a good shot at a touchdown or at least a first down at the one. Except Seattle's Jordan Babineaux blew right by Gramatica's weak ass block attempt to run down Romo from behind and stop him a yard short (in all the talk about Romo's screwup, the fact that Babineaux made an incredible play to save the game has pretty much been sadly ignored). Easterbrook is convinced that Vanderjagt, who is "ill-tempered", would have done a much better job of stopping Babineaux. And he's right. Vanderjagt has a nasty disposition at times, plus he's a lot bigger than the midget from Argentina. Vanderjagt could have just stepped in front of Babineaux and certainly held him up long enough.

Damn (off subject alert), I have got this song stuck in my head from a movie I saw over the weekend. And it wasn't that good of a movie. At least to my expectations. In fact, I'm still pissed because it was a complete tease. Channel surfing gets me to a movie called D.E.B.S. which has a bunch of girls at some secret agent college. Except they dress like Catholic schoolgirls. And are hot. And one's got itchy britches for a female criminal mastermind who is equally hot. With this premise, how could I lose? Easy. It was PG-13. Bastards. Just setting me up for a disappointment. Except I got to the point in the movie where they played some song called A Little Respect which I cannot get out of my head. It's not a bad song, but not what I usually listen to. I'm debating whether to download the song and play it until I develop a blood clot or don't download it and repeatedly smash my head on my desk. I'm leaning towards desk.

Back to Cowboys' premature climax, another point Easterbrook made was why was Romo doing the holding anyway. Well, we know why. Teams rarely use their starting quarterbacks, but a lot use their backups and Romo started the season as a backup. Others use their punters. Louisville has used a wide receiver. The gist of all of them is that those players are used to handling a ball (Tom Brady his own, Jeff Garcia allegedly someone else's) and should be better at holding. I lean towards punters myself. I wouldn't use a backup quarterback because while quarterbacks handle the ball a lot, backups don't. I wouldn't use a starter because they handle a ball a lot, but in a different (and sometimes obscene) way. Go with a punter. They are used to taking a long snap and not really paying particular attention downfield. Besides, outside of an Oakland punter who may be needed about 10 times a game, most punters don't have enough to do.

I haven't had a chance to review all my bowl picks, but I do have a thought on Florida's win over Ohio State. To begin with, I was happy for Chris Leak, because the way Florida fans treated him during the year was a shame. As for the game, I wondering if the Big Ten will finally wise up and get rid of the rule that their teams have to quit playing the weekend before Thanksgiving. Ohio State had not played a game in almost two months. I'm not sure they would have beaten Florida anyway, because Florida saved their best game for last (and before they try to play the disrespect card, if the Gators had played with that kind of passion all year, or even a couple of regular season games, maybe we wouldn't have doubted them as they needed a blocked field goal to beat South Carolina at home). Still, Ohio State is not that bad, but laying off 50 days is ridiculous.

It was fun while it lasted

Of course the big news for me this week (as a season ticket holder) is that UL's highly successful football coach, Bobby Petrino, is leaving his job to take the head coaching position of the Atlanta Falcons. I will place the blame on Dave Spitzer who is an Atlanta native and should probably not sleep too soundly on the upcoming ski trip. Few things will throw me into a homicidal rage, but messing with my football team will do it. Actually, I'm just kidding. I've never killed anyone on the ski trip. Certainly not anyone in our cabin. And if I were to do so, I'm sure my first victim would be Phil if, for instance, certain potentially embarrassing footage of me ever made it into the ski trip video. But, really, what's the chance that I would beat Phil to death with a pool cue in some psychotic rage over something like that? Probably not better than 60-40.

But I digress. I want to thank Petrino for a good four year run that was more successful than any time in Cardinal history. It got me winter trips to Miami and Jacksonville the past two years. A lot of Cards' fans are unhappy about him leaving, but there's a certain naivete in that. Rich Rodriguez is from West Virgina (poor bastard), played for WVU and coached the Brokeback Mountaineers. Yet, he seriously considered leaving for Alabama. So, if a favorite son is willing to leave Toothless Redneck Central Tech, why would I expect a coach (whose only connection to UL was being hired as an assistant and then head coach) to turn down the NFL and double his salary. Plus, what I really find laughable are the ones crying about "loyalty". Well, word is that UL is going to hire Tulsa head coach Steve Kragthorpe. If that happens, that means three of the last four head football coaches at UL (including John L Smith and Ron Cooper) were hired away from other jobs. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to complain about someone else "stealing" our coach when we're willing to do it to Tulsa, Utah State or Eastern Michigan (although after the Ron Cooper disaster, I wish we hadn't stolen that guy).

Still, I hate to see Petrino leave. He's a great coach, and I think he'll do well at Atlanta assuming he can either dump coach-killer Michael Vick or at least get his stupid ass to listen. Petrino has always run a balanced, non-gimmick, pro style offense, so I think he's going to beat the common perception of college coaches non being worth a damn in the pros. It's a crap argument anyway. Sure, Steve Spurrier didn't do well, but Jimmy Johnson did. And Bill Walsh was the Stanford head coach before taking the 49ers job, so don't believe the myths about college coaches. Besides, Petrino spent time as an offensive coordinator with the Jacksonville Jaguars, so he's not a novice. As for UL, I said he's a great coach, so I'm sorry to see him go. However, while UL reached another level under Petrino, we were winning and going to bowl games before he got there, and I predict we will after he leaves. Now, if Brian Brohm leaves early because Petrino says he'll draft him, Spitzer may want to spend his first day on the ski trip convincing me how much he hates the Falcons, because I hold grudges and am prone to fits of irrationality. God knows, we don't want an tragic accident to happen.

Wildcard Recap

Well, went 3 for 4 in my Wildcard picks. Wasn't too surprised by any of the outcomes. I think New England needs to worry about their future, because the Jets have a lot in place for next year and Brady's internet porn predilection isn't a good offseason workout. It's not really a throwing motion. Except maybe in rugby. In the Colts/Chiefs game, I was right about Peyton Manning going into playoff choke mode as he threw three interceptions. Unfortunately I was wrong about poor coaching being even between Tony Dungy and Herm Edwards. Edwards really went into the tank this week. I've seen more imaginative play calling in Pong. Lousy run defenses can be effective by stacking the line if you don't open things up. It was the end of the third quarter before Tony Gonzalez stopped blocking and began running routes. Let me repeat that. The Chiefs second best offensive weapon spent 75% of the game blocking. You're already down 16-0, dumbdick. Why did the Chiefs go conservative? The only reason they were even in the playoffs was because the Bengals spit the bit in week 17. What did they have to lose?

Now, the NFC games were a lot more interesting even if Jared Lorenzen only got in for one play. Peyton's little brother Eli showed him how to really choke in the playoffs. Now, Plaxico Burress almost screwed it up by making great plays on Eli's errant passes. In Eli's defense, Plaxico usually comes up small in big games, so Eli had every reason to believe his choke job would be helped by throwing it to Burress. Still, in the end, the Eagles came back to win it on University of Louisville product David Akers' last second field goal. Akers also went to high school with Jon Connor and the Dancing Fat Guy I met on the plane to Chicago, but he was just some soccer player there.

Speaking of field goals, it's usually helpful to a kicker for the holder to actually hold the ball. Case in point, the last-minute-probable-game-winning-field-goal by Martin Gramatica (of the famous Gramatica Brothers Gourmet School of Dumbass Kickers) didn't quite have the distance for Dallas because Tony Romo didn't actually catch and spot the snap. Kind of a big fall for Romo who was linked with Jessica Simpson and then Carrie Undersomethingorother. Now, he's probably going out with Clay Aiken. After watching Romo's palpable anguish in his postgame interview after killing any chance Dallas had to make the next round of the playoffs, I probably shouldn't enjoy it so much. Except, one, I hate the Cowboys. And two, I've always hated the Cowboys. Keeping Terrell Owens from advancing to the second round was just gravy.

NFL Playoffs - Wildcard Games

Usually at the end of the year I like to predict who is going to the Super Bowl, but certain things are keeping me from it. Namely, every team in the playoffs has the potential to be a giant turd. I don’t trust a single team still playing. Look at the top four teams. San Diego and Chicago has a quarterback issue (one fairly new, the other season long). New Orleans has a defense issue. I plain don't trust Baltimore. And these guys don't play until the second week. Since I don’t want to look like a complete ass when my Super Bowl picks lose their first game, I’m picking by week. This week is the wildcard games. Here is exactly what’s going to happen.

NFC
Dallas at Seattle
Both teams have nine wins. Both have lost three of their last four. None of their stars have played up to their potential. Where are the differences? Well, Dallas is healthy while Seattle is injured. Does that mean take Dallas? Nope. For one, Seattle is at home. For another, Cowboy players are bickering like a couple of spinster sisters. Third, Dallas has looked flat terrible the past two weeks. Seattle is only 1-1 the past two, but they looked much better. While Dallas seems to have more talent, they are getting less and less out of it each week, while Seattle is finally getting their two top offensive players healthy. Granted, I’m not thrilled with either team after the way they dipped coming into the playoffs. I think it will be a game so ugly that I may go to a strip joint to watch it in the hopes of being distracted by something a bit more interesting. In the end, Seattle will pull out the win.

NY Giants at Philadelphia
The Eagles are rolling into the playoffs on a hotter streak than any other NFC team. The Giants had a must win over a bad team just to get in, and they still barely won. Jeff Garcia is hot while Eli Manning sucks. Brian Westbrook is playing better than ever, and while Tiki Barber had a nice season finale, he’s already left the field mentally. Word is he has already signed a TV deal with ABC to take his thesaurus and Skeletor smile to Good Morning America and 20/20 which makes me glad I don't watch pseudo-news programs. Notice the non-sports shows. If he's signing TV deals before the season is over, what's his priority? Normally everything points to one team winning, I get nervous and almost want to go the other way. Not this time. I would be shocked if the Giants won.

AFC
NY Jets at New England
I want to go with the Jets. They split with the Patriots during the regular season. They've completely overachieved with Coach Magini outcoaching Bill Belicheck. They play solid disciplined football. The problem is they don't have the talent. Chad Pennington is playing his best football ever, but that's not saying much of anything. Curtis Martin is probably still the Jets' best running back, and he hasn't played a down yet. Now the Patriots aren't perfect. They have experience at quarterback (at playing quarterback and surfing animal porn websites), and a strong running game. Defense is still good. However, their receivers suck. Their offense has had some issues scoring during the season. Still, receiver and possibly special teams are the only areas that the Jets have more talent, so as much as I would like to pick them, I can't.

Kansas City at Indianapolis
A lot of people have the Chiefs as a trendy pick to beat the Colts. Mainly because Larry Johnson is a top running back, and the Colts suck against the run. It's a good theory, because the Colts lost three of their last five games, and all were against teams that ran the ball down their throat. It allowed two teams with middling overall offenses and bad defenses, Tennessee and Houston, knock them off late. And Kansas City's defense is actually better than bad. It's mediocre. So, will the Chiefs beat the Colts? Tough call. Coaching isn't an issue. Tony Dungy and Herm Edwards both have a history of pulling a reverse Linda Lovelace and choking in the big game. So, I don't see one outcoaching the other. Trent Green has never proven to be a big game quarterback while Peyton Manning has proven not to be. The question is whether his choke job will be this week or next. I think it's this week.

Arriving Home

Well, I did arrive home. It was well after I thought I would. The flight from Chicago was delayed originally because we were waiting for a flight crew to get in from Green Bay. That delay was enough that they announced our boarding about the time I should have been unlocking my door at home. Then came the real problem. Either the ground crew or the pilot erred. Either the gangway ramp wasn't retracted enough or the pilot wasn't paying attention. I only got the pilot's side and he blamed the ground crew, although that's probably the case since they give the ground crew those orange flashlights to direct the plane out. Anyway, no matter whose fault it was, the plane's wing was driven into the gangway ramp. I shit you not. I was in a plane crash on the ground. So, then we had to wait while "Aircraft Maintenance" showed up to see if we were flight worthy or needed to be moved to another plane. After much picture taking and animated discussion (my window overlooked the problem area), Maintenance said it was okay. At this point, most of the passengers were so tired of waiting, we were happy to take off in a possibly damaged aircraft. Since the pilot was going to actually be in the plane when it took off, he decided to take a look. I watched him poke and prod the wing. Then he disappeared for some time. I assumed he was at the bar, but apparently he went inside to give his side of the story to the boss before ground crew could. So, after a long wait in the plane, we took off to arrive in Lexington about three hours late. Needless to say, American Eagle through Chicago is not going to be my first choice the next time I fly.

Orange Bowl

It figures. Miami was beautiful when I got there (late). It was great Tuesday morning. It was just as nice as I was getting ready to leave Wednesday (that God for a late flight out). Yet, it started raining about lunchtime on Tuesday and didn’t stop until gametime. Granted, I was happy that it stopped by the time the game started, because watching football in a poncho sucks and your nachos get wet. Still, I left Lexington and it was raining, but on the plus side, it was still 70 degrees in Miami which is a huge advantage over the 39 degree rain I left.

I think my biggest beef was the rain caused chicks to overdress. I wasn’t in Miami long enough to go thong hunting on the beaches, so I was left hoping for hot college babes (or hot post college babes or even hot pre-college babes as long as they fit applicable laws) in various layers of undress at the game. Unfortunately, ponchos are America’s burqa and leave a lot to the imagination. Sure, there were some girls in clear ponchos, but a lot of them were oddly bundled up. Let me remind you, IT WAS 70 DEGREES EVEN IN THE RAIN. So, I was left with a handful of hearty ladies who damned the weather in order to show off their assets, and I salute their perseverance.

The halftime show was a bit of a disappointment. Actually, it sucked. It started with a battle of the bands between UL and Wake’s bands. I don’t like marching band music. Then that guy who can’t sing but won American Idol came out and sang one song. Then Gladys Knight came out and sang one song, but at least it was sung well. Still, it was a pretty damn big production to get two songs out of your main events. Then came the worst idea ever (yet one I’ve seen at most bowl games I’ve been to. A bunch (looked like 500) of high school bands came out and played poorly as they walked in an amorphous mass across the field. Little Richard at the Liberty Bowl a few years ago was much better.

Oh, and there was a football game. As I said, the rain stopped at gametime, so the evening was very pleasant. To be honest, I didn’t want the game to be crazy like the insane Boise State/Oklahoma game, because when you let a lower ranked team stay in the game, you give them the chance to win. Well, the game wasn’t as close as the Boise State one, but it was closer than I liked until UL pulled away in the fourth quarter. The Cards just didn’t look sharp. I think for the next bowl game, they need to forego the Trump International Sonesta Beach Resort and stay at a Best Western. Maybe then they’ll be a bit more focused. However, they got their crap together and pulled out the win. Therefore, I can leave happy. Next year, I’m hoping for the Sugar Bowl.

I’m back at Chicago waiting for the final leg of my return to get me to Lexington. I had to connect through Tampa which was irritating because the nicest plane I’ve been on so far was that little jump from Miami to Tampa. It certainly helped to be on the emergency exit row. If you’re flying and it’s available, ask for it. A lot more leg room. Once again showing what a small world it is, the guy sitting next to me from Tampa to Chicago had also been at the Orange Bowl. Even smaller, he was a Wake Forest student who was originally from Louisville. He said he had to root for Wake because he had been there for four years. I called him a traitor and threw his peanuts in his face. Just kidding, they don’t give you peanuts anymore.

Flying To Miami

I really don't mind flying, except the takeoff and landing. Actually, the only takeoffs and landings that bother me are when they are in the cropdusters that fly out of Lexington. The part I don't like about flying is the hassle. My flight out of Lexington was delayed about a half hour which had me worried about catching my connection in Chicago. That didn't become a problem because I'm sitting in O'Hare Airport because my flight out of here has been delayed two hours. At least. It means I'm going to miss the night before party in downtown Miami which pisses me off. Actually, I've been pissed off since the person in front of me on the cropduster out of Lexington had their cat with them. Apparently, some cats don't like flying that much, so they yammer the entire flight. Loudly.

Being the small world that it is (at least in Lexington), one of the fellow passengers on my flight was a Tates Creek graduate who replied when asked "yes, I know Jon Connor". In fact, they are MySpace friends. Yes, I was on a plane with the Dancing Fat Guy. Who was still drunk from the night before. And the drinks he had at the Bourbon Bar in Lexington's airport. Probably a good thing the flight was only an hour long.

My Yearly Bowl Picks

I always like to post my college bowl game picks, so if I’m right about a surprise win (I picked Texas over USC last year), I have historical documentation (OK, an internet blog, but it’s dated) to back me up. I can even waffle some. Sure, I picked Georgia, but I can point out I thought the team speed of the the West Virginia Brokeback Mountaineers could cause the Bulldogs problems. And I can also ignore the historical documentation of all of the picks I blew. Anyway, here are this year’s picks (if I’m not clear in my explanation, winners are in italics).

Poinsetta Bowl – TCU vs. No. Illinois – I like NIU’s Garrett Wolfe a lot, but TCU’s defense will be too much for him. Besides, how can you pick against a team called the Frogs named after a Toad that isn't really a toad.
Las Vegas Bowl – BYU vs. Oregon – Mormons vs. Ducks. What else can you say? I'll take the school named after the dude with 50 wives.
New Orleans Bowl – Rice vs. Troy – One team is named after edible grass (or someone named Rice). The other after a city full of people fooled by a wooden horse and subsequently lent their name to a popular brand of condoms. Bet on the Rubbers.
Papajohns.com Bowl – S. Florida vs. East Carolina – Ummm, Pizza. South Florida is in Tampa which is halfway to Georgia. East Carolina is in Greenville which is near the coast. Give ECU the edge for honesty, but they'll still lose.
New Mexico Bowl – New Mexico vs. San Jose St. – New Mexico went 6-6 to finish 5th in the Mountain West. Their reward - a bowl named after their state being played in their home stadium. I'm still taking San Jose St.
Armed Forces Bowl – Tulsa vs. Utah – Utah named their team after the tribe the state is named for. Tulsa's team name in the Golden Hurricane which is a weather phenomenon that isn't gold colored nor found in Oklahoma. Since the BCS has proven that logic has no place in college football, take Tulsa.
Hawaii Bowl – Arizona St vs. Hawaii – AZ State players will have fond memories of the trip. If they go to the beach, because they aren’t winning this game.
Motor City Bowl – Middle Tenn. St. vs. Central Michigan – CMU lost their coach. MTSU didn't. Take the mid-major team that was good enough to get their coach promoted.
Emerald Bowl – Florida St. vs. UCLA – Contrary to what you might think, this bowl was named after nuts, not jewels. Low scoring game as neither team passes the ball or runs the ball well. UCLA’s coming off a big win over Southern Cal while FSU pretty quit down the stretch. Tough call, but take UCLA.
Independence Bowl – Oklahoma St. vs. Alabama – This bowl was much more interesting as the Poulon/Weedeater Independence Bowl. And when it didn’t have two sorry ass 6-6 teams. Take the sorry ass OSU Cowboys.
Holiday Bowl – Texas A&M vs. Cal – Could be a statement game for Cal which means they’ll lose like they do in every statement game they play.
Texas Bowl – Rutgers vs. Kansas St. – Formerly the Houston Bowl, but changed its name to feel bigger. Then showing how big time it is, it signed a TV deal with a pro football owned channel that’s premium in most markets including one of the teams. With the help of possibly losing an antitrust exemption, the NFL is allowing Rutgers fans to watch their team beat KSU (whose fans may not get to watch).
Music City Bowl – Clemson vs. Kentucky – Since this is not a higher tier bowl, UK’s presence is not the first sign of the Apocalypse. Poor Marty Moore. ESPN has this game, so does anyone think they won’t constantly show Moore fumbling after catching what should have been a game ending interception in the ’93 Peach Bowl? This rematch of that game won’t be 14-13 because both teams will score. I think Clemson’s defense will do a better job of slowing Kentucky’s offense than UK’s defense will do to Clemson’s.
Sun Bowl – Oregon State vs. Missouri – Oregon State is rolling. Missouri is fading. Doesn’t mean Oregon St will win, but they will.
Liberty Bowl – Houston vs. S. Carolina – Ah, memories of Memphis in December. I imagine South Carolina fans will be quite surprised by how cold it can be there(except UL isn’t playing in it, so it will probably be nice & sunny). Imagine their surprise when Houston upsets the Cocks.
Insight Bowl – Texas Tech vs. Minnesota – Minnesota can’t stop the pass to save their life. Texas Tech throws on just about every play. I like Texas Tech’s odds.
Champ Sports Bowl – Purdue vs. Maryland – Purdue didn’t beat anybody who was worth anything. Maryland barely won most of their wins. So, Maryland barely beats Purdue.
Meineke Car Care Bowl – Navy vs. Boston College – BC’s coach just left for a conference rival who coaches in the same state as the bowl game. Leaning towards the Swabbies on this one.
Alamo Bowl – Texas vs. Iowa – My how the mighty have fallen. From national champs to playing a 6-6 Iowa team. Actually, I’m still not sure how a 9-3 Texas ended up here, but they are clearly better.
Chick-fil-A Bowl – Georgia vs. Virginia Tech – A de facto home game for Georgia. What happened the last time they had one of those? There will be less scoring, but history will repeat itself.
MPC Computer Bowl – Miami vs. Nevada – I’m sure Nevada is pleased to be here, and Miami isn’t. Truthfully, this is one of the hardest picks to make, because Miami is better, but they could come out flatter than the transsexual hooker that Jon Con…. er, never mind. Or be motivated to send the coach-they-got-fired out as a winner. Coin flip says motivated.
Outback Bowl – Tennessee vs. Penn State – Joe Paterno has an incredible 21-10-1 bowl record at Penn State. Of course, a lot of those wins were when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. As of January, his bowl record will be 21-11-1.
Cotton Bowl – Auburn vs. Nebraska – On paper, Auburn seems like the likely winner, but under Tuberville, they don’t play so well against good out of conference teams. I’m going with the Cornholers or huskers or whatever.
Gator Bowl – West Virginia vs. Georgia Tech – Toothless Redneck Central Tech isn’t good against the pass, and GA Tech has a great receiver in Calvin Johnson. Too bad they have a crappy quarterback in Reggie Ball. The Brokeback Mountaineers run all over GA Tech to win.
Capital One Bowl – Arkansas vs. Wisconsin – When governors do their silly bets on these games, I’m assuming Wisconsin will bet cheese or bratwurst, but what product is synonymous with Arkansas? Stained dresses? Wannabe New York politicians? At least Arkansas football is good this year.
Rose Bowl – Michigan vs. USC – Always seems to be a team that seemingly got jobbed by the bowl system then turned in a clunker. Michigan is this year’s clunker. Just like a Ford.
Fiesta Bowl – Boise State vs. Oklahoma – I would dearly love to pick Boise State to win this, but Oklahoma will be too tough. Plus, they have a guy named CJ Ah You on the team. How do you counteract that? Ia Falo? Just not as good.
Orange Bowl – Louisville vs. Wake Forest – Dammit, Louisville better win.
Sugar Bowl – Notre Dame vs. LSU – Neither team deserved to be in a BCS bowl game. ND only played two good teams and had their asses handed to them both times. LSU didn’t even win their division of the SEC. Still, LSU will handle ND easily.
International Bowl – Cincinnati vs. Western Michigan – Since this game is in Toronto, they probably should have scheduled it before January since people going to the game will need a passport. Of course, with the crowds they draw in the regular season, may not be many. UC’s new coach is from Central Michigan, so he knows Western Mich which will be enough for the win.
GMAC Bowl – Ohio vs. Southern Miss – This is not the same Ohio team that beat UK two years ago. That team sucked. Still, this one won’t beat Southern Miss
BCS Championship Game – Florida lobbied to get into this game. I hope it was worth it when they lose by two touchdowns to Ohio State.

$2 Million Doesn't Buy Much Anymore

My only prediction this year for the UL/UK basketball game was that it would be ugly. I think I understated that. Ugly would have been an improvement. This was a game that 11-6 at the 10 minute mark of the first half. The rest of the half got a little better, but one stat puts it in perspective. UL finished the half on a 0-9 shooting streak to end up shooting 26.7% from the field, and they were still only down three. Of course, they improved to 27% for the game. I would like to give credit to UK since it would make me feel better about UL's chances later in the year. However, when a team misses 21 of 24 mostly wide-open three point shots, I'm not sure you can give a lot of credit to defense. Plus, how did they only score 61 points when UL's defense was playing "unintentional double team"? (That's inexplicably double teaming someone with out the ball which is really just not knowing who you should be guarding) Well, they got out rebounded 19-8 on the offensive boards. So, I wouldn't book those tickets to the Final Four for them. Still, they are in much better shape than UL. Fortunately, I have the football team giving me a reason to go to Miami, because basketball ain't crap.

Those who know me know that I've never liked Rick Pitino. His "coaches win, players lose" attitude got old when he was at UK. However, at least when he was doing his schtick at UK, he was still winning. I didn't like Pitino coming to UL (or how they booted Denny Crum out the door), but I assumed he would win. I was a little less than pleased when his first three years included one NCAA tournament win. Then he made the Final Four in 2005, so I thought he turned the corner, but last year's NIT team was disappointing, but this year's may not even make the NIT. That's how mediocre Pitino has been at UL. The Final Four looks like the fluke. At UK, in his six seasons UK was not on probation, he went to three Final Fours with his worst result being a second round loss. At UL, unless things get dramatically better, he will miss the NCAAs in three out of six years with a second round loss being the second best season.

I think the worst thing about Pitino has been his history as a pathological liar (in Boston, the press called him Pitinocchio). At UK, it was always that he hadn't talked to anyone about an NBA job while he's negotiating contracts or that UK would be a better team without Jamal Mashburn. At UL, he lies even more. Every recruiting class is his best ever, but he runs off half of them for not being good enough or even better, he says they aren't ready for college basketball like he did with prized recruit Derrick Caracter. On the radio show before the game, he said UL wasn't struggling (all Big East teams have at least two losses to Atlantic 10 squads), and Randolph Morris is the second best center in college behind Greg Oden (which makes UL's performance even worse since Morris was on the bench most of the game). After the game, he said they played a good game if they had actually hit their shots.

That last line is probably true. However, Pitino's in game performance has left a lot to be desired. Yeah, UL couldn't hit crap from the three point line. So, why were they still shooting so many three point shots? Here's a thought. If something isn't working, make an adjustment. I'm convinced the only reason UL made the Final Four in 2005 was because they got down 20 points to West Virginia in the Elite Eight. When you get to that point, you don't run plays, you just play. Once it was out of the coach's hands and into the players', UL makes a huge comeback and wins. Since that game, they haven't beaten anyone worth a crap. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. The simple fact is Pitino's success has had a good bit of luck added to good recruiting. His Providence success depended on him being one of the few coaches to immediately embrace the three point shot. At UK, college basketball hadn't seen the glut of top high school players jumping directly to the NBA. So, he's able to stockpile talent to the point that he had better players on the bench (say Ron Mercer) than most teams had as their focal point. There also weren't the recruiting restrictions that limited how many new scholarship players a team could sign each year. So, he could run off a bunch of players and replace them easily.

Unfortunately (for me), Pitino seems to be mailing it in. I think that Final Four has caused him to believe that he's "proven" he can still coach after the Boston problems. Another point that he made in the pregame interview was that he's happy now as opposed to when he coached the Celtics. Well, that's great that he has his priorities in order and no longer considers winning the most important thing. Except UL is paying him $2 million a year because they thought they were getting the win-at-all-cost attitude. Not an underachieving team that might not even make the NIT this year. Let's put it this way, Denny Crum was considered out of touch and past his prime. If UL doesn't' turn it around enough to make the NCAAs (unlikely with the Big East schedule ahead), that will be two straight years that UL has not made the tournament. Crum never went two years without making the tournament.

Continuing A Theme

Yes, I'm still talking college football, but that's because it's got a lot going on right now. Ohio State beat Michigan in the “Game of the Century”. They only won the game by three points, so now a lot of people are calling for a rematch in the BCS Championship. Which is crap. To begin with, Michigan was on an emotional after the death of their patron saint. Plus, it was a rivalry game where strange things happen. As the underdogs, Michigan played over their heads (this was their second highest scoring game), so a close game could be an aberration. It doesn't matter to me. I just don’t think any team should be playing in a one game national championship if they didn’t win their conference. The argument is that since Ohio State is clearly the number one team, then a close win means Michigan is clearly the number two team. Well, since Michigan was as close to losing to Ball State as beating Ohio State (Michigan scored their last time with two minutes, left and OSU ran out the clock while Ball State had the ball last with a chance to tie), does that mean Ball State is clearly the third best team in the Big 10 or is Michigan only the fifth best team in the MAC? The rematch argument might have a shot if the Big 10 was the best conference, but it wasn’t even close. Wisconsin is the only other Big 10 team in the top 25, and they got there by playing nobody (best non-conference opponent was 4-7 Bowling Green). Notre Dame lost to Michigan, but overall went 3-1 against the conference, and I’m not sold on the Irish. Hell, the Big East went 3-2 against the Big 10 with the only losses being Ohio State over Cincy and an Iowa win in overtime to Syracuse (worst team in the Big East). Outside of Ohio State’s win over Texas and Michigan’s over Notre Dame, what is the Big 10’s biggest out of conference win? Michigan State over a 6 win Pitt? Michigan over Vandy?

Unfortunately, Wisconsin has become the rule with the top teams from the big conferences. Don’t play anybody hard out of conference and defend it by saying your conference is so hard, you have to schedule patsies. It ignores the fact that Wisconsin has conference colleagues Illinois, Indiana and Northwestern every year. Much like the SEC talks about having a hard game every week, but ignores the fact that their conference includes Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and most years, Kentucky. On a side note, I find the SEC defenders amusing when they talk about the great defenses in the SEC, but LSU was the only SEC school to put up more than 31 points against the Wildcats. Yet, Louisville, Central Michigan and Louisiana Monroe all scored 36 or more against UK.

I think Auburn last year was the epitome of the using the conference affiliation crutch. They started out the season losing to Georgia Tech, but went 7-1 in the SEC with the only loss being at LSU, so by the end of the season some were saying it was a shame Auburn’s loss kept them out of the SEC title game because they looked like the best team in the conference. Well, they lost 24-10 in their bowl game to Wisconsin meaning their only non-conference games against other BCS conference teams was two losses by double digits. If people had looked deeper, they may have noticed something. Auburn had lost to Georgia Tech pretty handily. In the SEC, five of the teams they beat (Ark, UK, S. Carolina, and the Miss schools) were mediocre at best, lousy at worst. So, they only had three hard games in conference. They lost to LSU, squeaked by Georgia and beat Alabama by 10. Simply put, they were a good team, but not anything special, so when they faced a comparable team from another conference, they lost.

This is really why I wish there was a college playoff. Teams would have more incentive to play tougher out of conference schedules, because a loss to a good team wouldn’t hurt as much as it does now. In football now, a second loss completely takes a team out of contention for the title. If Texas hadn’t scheduled Ohio State, they would be in consideration for the BCS championship because (assuming they replaced the Buckeyes with a cupcake) only have one loss since then. With a playoff, they would still have a shot because as winner of the Big 12, they would get in. Another reason is that this year, the assumption is made that Ohio State and Michigan are the top two teams, but since they haven’t played anybody from the PAC-10 or SEC, how do we know they aren’t where they are because the Big 10 is down? We don’t. In a playoff, they would have to face a top team from another conference. As much as I like going to bowl games, they are really a crap way to settle a championship.

OK, I've updated

At Matt & Kara's Bar Mitzvah party or wedding or whatever they had that served beer (lots of beer, for which I thank them) that I went to, a couple of people griped that I hadn't updated my blog. Of course, some others criticized my dancing which is patently unfair because I suffer a disability - lack of rhythm (which should be classified as one if it isn't). I have good reasons for not being able to update my blog. For one, Little Guy died, and I was completely devastated or at least as devastated as one can be when their favorite rodent passes away. I'm not really sure where that falls on the grief meter. However, the main reason is that it's football season, and I do a weekly report for it at my fantasy website which get pretty long. WARNING - the site is for adults only and people who aren't easily offended. Actually, if you aren't easily offended, there is a good chance you might still be offended. Just remember, the target audience is male and friends of mine.

Ironically, another complaint was that the last post before my recent hiatus was about college football. Well, so is this one. Once again, I think college football needs a playoff. There are too many teams that I think could win it this year. I have season tickets for Louisville football, so obviously I have a bias towards them. However, before they defecated on themselves in losing to Rutgers, I could not believe how many people were arguing that an undefeated Big East team was undeserving of a shot in the national championship game. That's ludicrous. If Rutgers wins out, they will be 12-0 with wins over top 10 teams Louisville and West Virginia. I think this weekend showed the fallacy of thinking the Big East is a lesser conference.

Does the Big East have as many good teams as the SEC or Big 10 or other BCS conferences? Probably not, but that's because the Big East only has 8 teams while the others have between 10 and 12. So, obviously, the depth isn't there. However, if you break it down, I think it looks a lot better. At the top of the conference is Rutgers, Louisville and Toothless-Redneck-Central-Tech (commonly referred to as West Virginia University). I would put those teams up against any of the top teams from the other conferences. Would they win every time? No, but they wouldn't lose every time either. Rutgers hammered Illinois 33-0, but Ohio State barely beat them last week. Maryland is tied for first in their ACC division, but were destroyed by WVU. The same Kansas State team that UL beat by 18 on the road without their starting quarterback just beat Texas.

However, it's not just the top of the conferences. Contrary to popular belief, the other conferences have some crap teams. UConn is the second worst team in the Big East. They beat Indiana, a Big 10 team that will go to a bowl if they can beat Purdue next week. Syracuse is the worst team in the Big East, and they beat the worst team in the Big 10, Illinois. So, I think it's pretty obvious that the middle and bottom of the Big East match up pretty well with the middle and bottom of the other conferences. Southern Cal is probably in the driver's seat to be the one loss team playing Ohio State (who should beat an overrated Michigan team) in the title game. Yet, USC lost to Oregon State - an unranked team that lost 63-27 to UL last year and 42-14 to Boise State this year. Want to tell me again about their tough schedule?

The SEC is the conference that really irritates me. For the record, I think top to bottom, the SEC is the best conference in college football. However, I don't think it's by much. Outside of LSU, no one beat a decent Kentucky team like Louisville did. The problem with the SEC is that they rarely play nonconference road games, but claim they can't go undefeated because the SEC is so tough. We don't know that because they only play patsies outside of the conference. Auburn is the epitome of this. They had eight home games. Of the four road games, they squeaked by mediocre South Carolina and bad Mississippi and lost badly at home to Arkansas. Yet, going into this weekend, they were considered one of the top one loss teams in the country. Then they lost to a Georgia team best described as mediocre. Florida is the other SEC team claiming greatness with a loss. They've managed to keep winning, but not well. They barely held off Georgia. A close win over Vandy. They needed a blocked extra point and field goal to beat South Carolina. Surprisingly, the best team in the SEC, Arkansas, gets about as much respect as a Big East team even though they are undefeated in conference. My guess is that it's because the SEC doesn't want to mention that their best team lost to a PAC-10 school by 36 points.

I think Ohio State is the best team, but they only beat Illinois by 7 (at home). I think if they had a 16 team playoff, there are several teams that would have a shot at it. Michigan, Texas, Southern Cal, Florida, WVU, UL, Rutgers, Cal? All are good teams. Does anyone really think George Mason was the fourth best team in the country last year in basketball? Yet, they made the Final Four. College football needs to decide a champion on the field.

College Football

As I sit here watching the start of the college season, I realize college has just as many schmucks calling games as the NFL. South Carolina was punting when a Mississippi State player breaks through and was about to block it. The punter quickly realizes he's not getting the kick off, pulls the ball back at the last second and takes off for a first down. The commentator calls it a fake. That's a heck of a fake if he held the ball out in front of him until the defender was two feet away before taking off. Fortunately, the other guys in the booth did say it was probably an unplanned play.

This is why polls aren't to be trusted. These are the people who vote in them. You should only listen to me if you want to know who will win a national title. Actually, don't listen to me. I look at this year's college football scene, and I can't figure out crap. Last year, it was pretty much Southern Cal and whoever won the Ohio State/Texas game. This year, it's wide open. Take a look at the preseason rankings. Six teams in each poll is getting first place votes. Ohio State is way ahead, but I can't figure out why. They've got most of their offense back, but lost almost all their defense, and they still have a coach who doesn't seem to like offense. A lot of people like Notre Dame, especially opposing quarterbacks. They do get most of their defense back, but they weren't worth a crap to begin with. Texas is still popular, but I saw too many games won solely by Vince Young last year. There's no college freshman who can replace that. Auburn's a trendy pick to win it, but they'll find a way to blow it. The only time they went undefeated, they played a crap schedule the same year two other teams went undefeated. Southern Cal is still hanging around the top of the polls, but I'm not buying the idea that they won't be hurt by the guys who went pro. Their defense actually wasn't very good last year. I don't see it getting better, and I don't think their offense is good enough to overcompensate again. Finally, West Virginia. They are only good when it's unexpected. They always screw up when expectations are high. Actually, any of those teams could go undefeated. Or, as I think, none will. So, I have no clue who will win the National Title, so I will be an unabashed homer and say the Louisville Cardinals. Now on to conference winners.

ACC
You know it's wide open when we last saw Miami, they were getting destroyed in the Peach Bowl, but I'm picking them to win the ACC. Actually, I think that loss was a fluke. I do think they will drop on defense and their offensive line is suspect, but who is going to catch then them in the Coastal Division? Georgia Tech will beat someone they shouldn't but lose too many others to contend. NC, Virginny and Duke aren't good enough. I'm not sure Duke is good enough to win the Ohio Valley Conference. Virginia Tech is the main competition. Again. However, while losing Marcus Vick was good for P.R., there's really no one to take his place. Add 12 other starters lost, and I think VT could drop out of second in the division. Now, who is Miami going to beat from the Atlantic Division for the ACC title? Trendy pick is Clemson, but I'm not buying it. Tommy Bowden is a good enough coach to keep from getting fired every year. They are returning a lot of starters, but they lost quarterback Charlie Whitehurst, who wasn't that good, but the guys they have now couldn't take his job. BC will go to another bowl, while Wake, Maryland and NC State will hold down the bottom of the division with at least one of them getting their coach fired. So, that leaves a stagnating Florida State to lose in the ACC championship.

Big East
Easy one. Louisville. Actually, it's more than my bias talking. West Virginia did beat UL last year, but it was in triple overtime in Morgantown. Trust me, UL is a completely different team at home. I'm more worried about the game in Pittsburgh because it's on the road. Now, that could be stupid on my part, but it wouldn't be the first time, and Lee Corso has made a nice career in broadcasting based on stupid picks. Rutgers could also be a problem for a lot of teams, but they are still a step down. Fortunately, South Florida has to come to the Bluegrass to lose, because they won't contend for the title, but they can screw it up for someone else. UConn, Cincy and Syracuse will be better than last year, but I don't see them threatening the top.

Big Ten
Let's start with who won't make it. Illinois and Indiana suck. Minnesota will start somewhat fast, and drop off drastically. Northwestern... nope. Purdue will be better, but still not good enough. Penn State lost everybody, and they haven't had good back to back seasons in years. Penn State didn't really lose everybody, because Wisconsin lost even more. Some people are picking Michigan, but I'm not falling for them again. No one blows them out, but lately they are good for at least two mind boggling losses. I actually like Michigan State as a dark horse candidate, but that's only because I think Drew Stanton is the best quarterback in the conference. Still, I'm not sure if it's enough to catch Iowa or Ohio State. Iowa does look awful solid with balanced offense and a pretty good defense. Ohio State did lose a lot of people, but it's Ohio State, they'll replace them. I'm not sure Ohio State can win the National Title, but they will win the Big Ten.

Big 12
My first prediction is that the Big 12 Champion will come from the Big 12 South. Why? Because I'm picking Nebraska to win the Big 12 North over Kansas, Iowa State, Missou, Colorado and Kansas State by default. They aren't that good, but they aren't bad enough to fall behind the other five. So, who wins the South? A lot of people liked Oklahoma, but that was until their starting quarterback got kicked off the team for selling enough cars to make a five figure salary on a summer job that he rarely showed up for. Oklahoma State stinks. Baylor is actually better than normal, but their normal is so bad that they still aren't very good. Texas Tech can win a lot of games, but they'll blow a couple, and Texas A&M could very well get their coach fired. Texas will start a freshman quarterback, but the rest of the team is good enough to win the Big 12.

PAC-10
As I said, Southern Cal has lost a lot, so not only do I not pick them to win it all, but I don't pick them to win the PAC-10. It's one thing to lose your quarterback or running back or big play all-purpose player, but it's quite another to lose all three. As I also said, there defense dipped noticeably last year, and I just don't think the replacement offense will be enough to compensate. The team I think wins the conference will have the most balance and the best player in the league. California's defense was the best in the PAC-10, and it goes with one of the best players in the country in Marshawn Lynch. If they can get some good play out of quarterback, they'll be tough to beat. Which means they'll get beat by UT right out of the gate. As for the rest of the conference, Oregon will be near the top, but not near enough. Arizona State will linger, but not do too much damage while UCLA will really drop. Arizona will rise, but not very high, and the States (Washington & Oregon) will fight for bowl eligibility. Stanford and Washington will suck hind tit again.

SEC
Well, Florida wins the East by default. Vandy wasn't very good with Jay Cutler. Without him, they are only a threat to Kentucky who will be close to bowl eligible. They have three should wins out-of-conference (Cent Mich, LA-Monroe, Tex St), and three teams they are as good as or better (Vandy, Miss, Miss St). They won't be bowl eligible because under Brooks, they always lose a game they shouldn't, and they never win a game they shouldn't. Tennessee may bounce back, but that's just to a winning record. Georgia is replacing a lot of players, but most notably at quarterback. I've seen Joe Tereshinski play, and if I was an opponent, I wouldn't be concerned. So Florida wins the East. Will they beat the West champion? No. I don't think they are as good as either of the two contenders - Auburn and LSU. While both teams lost a lot of linemen, receivers and defensive players, Auburn is the safe pick because they don't have a quarterback controversy. Of course, it could be because LSU has two QBs who are better, so I'm taking LSU. I also think Arkansas passes Alabama for third in the division. Ole Miss and Mississippi State both suck and wouldn't contend in CUSA this year.

Non BCS conferences who are pretty good
Conference USA
For the East, I have to go with Central Florida. I think they have the most talent in that division. I think Memphis was more than D'Angelo Williams, but they couldn't win the division with him, so I can't see them higher than second. Southern Miss and East Carolina will be mid-pack. I think Marshall could bounce back after a sub-par season, but not high enough. UAB is in total rebuilding mold. In the East, everyone seems high on UTEP, but I'm not sold on Jordan Palmer. I think they fall behind Tulsa who can put up the points. In fact, they could fall behind Houston if Kevin Kolb can put it together. SMU could improve some, but not to the top. Tulane won't be very good, and Rice will be horrible. I think Central Florida takes down Tulsa for the CUSA title.

Mountain West
It's between TCU and Utah. I think TCU has the better running game which will be the decisive factor. BYU is a throwback to the old WAC teams in that they can score a lot of points, but are hampered by the fact that their opponents will too. San Diego State will move up to the middle where Colorado State is moving down, and Wyoming is staying. Air Force is ironically deficient on defense, while UNLV is a bad team.

WAC
As is every year of recent memory, it's a two team race. Boise State or Fresno State. Even though they struggled at the end of last year, I'm taking Fresno State. Mainly because Boise State is replacing their head coach which could cause a little slippage. Hawaii or Nevada will finish third depending on whether or not Jerry Glanville (yes, that Jerry Glanville) can improve the Hawaiian defense. I'm leaning Nevada third. Louisianna Tech replaces too many good players to be much of a factor. Utah State, Idaho and San Jose State haven't had enough to be a factor in some time. New Mexico State has even less. Actually, I was going to predict New Mex State would at least win a game this year, but they did before I could post this.

Not quite so random thoughts

I think naming a bridge after Chuck Norris would be a good idea. As this website shows, he's more than just an actor.

I'm not surprised more Americans can name the Seven Dwarfs than can name Supreme Court justices (although I think answering Dopey should count for a Dwarf and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). After all, we've allowed a very small group of politically connected lawyers take on an inordinate amount of power without any way to get rid of them. So, knowing their names is about as worthwhile as knowing the Seven Dwarfs.

There's an old saying about never betting more than you can afford to lose. So, how big do you think the junk was on this Latvian in order for him to cut off part of it?

I don't know how I could have ever thought Al Gore's environmental crusade may have been political opportunism rather than altruism. What's next? Staunch environmentalists like the Kennedys opposed to a major wind project because it might get in the way of their yachting? Or a major political figure admonishing SUV drivers, and then leaving in an SUV. (And no I don't find driving one that uses 85% ethanol E85 to be a good excuse because it's hard to find and studies have found it burns as much fossil fuel to produce as it replaces.)

Some naked news. A Swedish woman caused a stir when she laid out topless on an Albanian beach. What I find interesting is that an Army patrol was sent to check it out. I'm sure little effort was made to communicate with her because then she might have put her top back on.

I'm sure there are better ways to stop the Girls Gone Wild bus.

When I first heard this story, it just said a DUI instructor at the police academy was busted for driving drunk. Then I read that she had no pants on. However, I find the fact that she was in this state with two dogs the most disturbing. I'm actually quite glad the arresting officer didn't ask what the dogs were for.

I heard on the radio that adult film star Darien Vain is performing at Solid Platinum which means double cover charge. Why do they charge more for porn stars? Does anyone get their DVDs to watch dancing?

Hey, Iran just sentenced a woman to death by stoning for the crime of adultery. The good news is that these things have theoretically become more rare. Except Atefeh Rajabi, but she wasn't stoned. She was hung, and may have had more than one episode of premarital sex which certainly outweighs the fact that she was a mentally incompetent 16 year old girl (I must say I'm a little concerned that Amnesty's issue was with her age and not her "crime"). Of course, it was the stupid girl's fault. If she had just claimed she was raped, she probably would have gotten off with 100 lashes. On the other hand claiming homosexuality would have been a problem. Iran has a habit of hanging them too. Fortunately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes to write long, pointless letters and has a PHD which is apparently important in some way that I don't particularly see. Unless it's because as an engineer he knows how much weight a rope can support without breaking.

Yet, a Nobel Peace Prize winner wants to kill George W. Bush. Not Ahmadeinejad. Not Saddam Hussein. Not Kim Jong-Il. Not President al-Bashir of Sudan. George W. Bush (I must stress the W because I assuming she's not in the mood to kill his father). You know, I never liked Bill Clinton for political reasons, but it never occurred to me to find virtue in his foreign political enemy, Slobodan Milosevic, just to make Clinton look bad.

Now for the really important news. Two weeks until the UK/UL football game. I know it's just another bad day for UK football fans, but at least you're undefeated right now. Only a few days after that is the first game to open the NFL season. The NFL has become so big that the Emmys were moved so they wouldn't conflict with the NFL regular season. It's football, then everything else.

Ruining Monday Night Football

I hate sportswriters. Actually, it’s mainly the columnists that I hate. Oh, there are some good ones – Chuck Culpepper and Mitch Albom come to mind. Most suck. A really bad trend of recent years has been columnists trying to sound "street" which means they write like a rap song - short, choppy sentences and lots of slang. Many of the ones that don't write "street" are old and a bit senile. Half of them seem to be boosters on the local team payroll, while the other half seem to believe nothing good should be written about the local team. Their sanctimonious behavior tends to get nauseating. Every columnist at some point has done the obligatory "People pay too much attention to sports which aren’t really that important" column without recognizing the fact that they wouldn’t have a job if it weren’t for people who care too much about sports.

What I really hate is the whining. Rick Bozich of the Louisville Courier used to complain every year in one of his columns because UL was forced to play bowl games in Memphis or Mobile. Let’s see. To go those bowl games, I had to use vacation time, get a hotel room, pay for gas to get there, buy my own meals and purchase a ticket to get in. His employer picked up his expenses while paying him to watch a football game that probably included a free buffet for reporters. What an ass. It was the same way with the Super Bowl in Jacksonville a couple of years back. One columnist for ESPN.com constantly declared it would be a disaster. Why? Because Jacksonville is a relatively small city (for a Super Bowl) which would lead to traffic problems. How horrible. I’m sure the millions of people at home were devastated at the thought that the 70 some thousand people who were actually going to the game might be inconvenienced. It was like the Atlanta Olympics. In order to make a profit, the games were held at large venues so more paying customers could go in. Sportswriter whined constantly about the crowds and congestion. The idea seemed to be the Little People should stay home and just read about the Olympics. Well, F U, buddy. Someone needs to tell these jerk-offs that major sporting events are not put on strictly for them.

Then, there are ethical issues. I’ve seen these guys intentionally try to stir up crap with coaches or teams that their paper cover, and by doing so, they become part of the story. Jay Marriotti picking fights with half of the Chicago sports scene certainly comes to mind. Yet, these guys are still allowed to cover the team. One of the worst cases was somewhat local. Pat Forde was investigating UL athletics during the Crum years, and he decided to phone a NCAA tipline with info he couldn’t verify. The Courier suspended him for six months, but he was still allowed to cover UL sports when he came back.

Now, my Monday Night Football will have a columnist in the booth. I was originally happy that ESPN didn't bring the whole worthless Sunday Night Football team over for MNF (just the worthless Joe Theismann). Even worse, they didn't bring in a decent columnist. They brought in Tony Kornheiser. What? Did they get a package deal for Pardon The Interruption and decided to save money? I think PTI is a crap show. Usually, he and Wilbon agree and just shout back and forth to make it seem they are having an argument. When they don't agree, arguing points becomes restating your original point, just louder. I actually used to listen to his radio show when it was on locally. I stopped because he did a monologue on how he would be willing to vote for Bill Bradley because he used to be a basketball player, and basketball players were used to working together. How stupid is that? I don't care who he wants to vote for (if I cared about political leanings in entertainment, I would have very little to watch), but don't give me some stupid, lame-ass excuse like that. Tony, you work for the Washington Post, not the Washington Times. Saying you'd vote for the liberal candidate is okay. Working together? Mobsters work together. Would he vote for John Gotti, Jr.? Stupid, pointless drivel.

Actually, my main opposition is that he's unnecessary. I don't know anyone who watches a sporting event just to listen to the announcers. They could tune in, but you're not going to get them long term. I've never understood why ABC, and now ESPN, feels the need to put three people in the booth. The best MNF team was when they just had Al Michaels and John Madden. Stick with two. One play-by-play and one color analyst. It doesn't get cluttered with too much talking. Just call the game. Unfortunately, the three man team seems to be a sacred because of the original MNF team of Howard Cosell, Don Meredith and Frank Gifford. I'm sorry. I never thought much of Cosell. He seemed to be using the broadcast to show how smart he is, but for some reason, people liked him (or at least ratings were good, but my belief is that it was because most of it was pre-cable). ESPN seems to be hoping Kornholer is more Cosell than Dennis Miller who is the other booth analyst who didn't have a playing or broadcast background. Actually, I liked Miller fine, but he never meshed well with Michaels or Fouts. Given time, it might have worked out.

As I sit here watching the first MNF (preseason version) on ESPN, I have a bad feeling about this Kornheiser experiment. I noticed that the next day the print media was overwhelmingly positive about the whole thing. For obvious reasons. They want to be next. Kornheiser could have spent the whole time loudly passing gas, and those morons would have declared it innovative. Actually, it might have been more entertaining. You see, I'm not real sure what he is supposed to be bringing to the broadcast. Supposedly humor and an outside perspective, but I don't see him enhancing anything. Early in the show, I was thinking Kornheiser was going to be Sam Bowie doing UK basketball games. He wasn't saying much or adding anything to the conversation. Unfortunately, I was wrong. He began to say things that added bad things to the conversation. Most of his jokes were forced, and few were remotely funny. In fact, Theismann was funnier which isn't good at all. When Kornheiser did ask a detailed question, it sounded like he had written it down during the week and was waiting for a good time to ask it. Then he had to beat the "Duante Culpepper or Brad Johnson" argument to death. It was like he was verbally writing a column. There's no time for that during a football game. Actually, he tried to argue everything. Well, not actually argue. Theismann made the statement that an Oakland assistant who had been out of coaching for several years was in a better position to return than Joe Gibbs because he had spent part of that time as a college football coach (still in the game) while Gibbs was totally focused on NASCAR. Made sense to me and had nothing to do with who is a better coach, but Kornheiser couldn't figure it out. Even worse, he didn't ask follow-up questions. He just kept asking (in a louder voice a la PTI) if Theismann really meant it until Mike Tirico explained it for about the fourth time. Is he a complete idiot? I don't want to listen to long arguments while watching a football game.

He wasn't just clueless about the game that one time. Shouldn't this schmuck know quite a bit about football. It was pretty bad that Theisman had to continually explain football to him like he was talking to a retarded child. It was really bad that some of the stuff Kornheiser was saying was so ignorant that Theisman sounded like a genius.

There was one area that he did fine which was when he was answering an email. Of course, he probably had them for several days in which to formulate a response. That is why I think this whole thing will flop. Doing color on a game means coming up with commentary on the spot. Sportswriters are used to putting something on paper and tweaking it over time. He doesn't do his TV show live, so they know what they'll be talking about well ahead of time. In fact, that's one thing I hated about the show was them trying to act spontaneous when you know it's been thought out (whether it's been thought out well is debatable). Even his radio show was about sports stories from the day, not something happening live. So, even the phone calls were about issues he had already researched. If ESPN wants to put Kornheiser in some role with MNF, put him in the studio and have a segment where he answers the emails. Unfortunately, I'll probably have to do MNF like I did the Sunday night game the past several years - watch it without volume.

Who Gets To Define Offensive?

Our intrepid correspondent is writing from the wilds of the Missouri bootheel. I was reading a column by Mark Steyn, and he made a very good point about the Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitism. Apparently, Gibson's diarrhea of the mouth anti-Semitism is somehow more egregious to many people than say a Muslim-American practicing his anti-Semitism by shooting several Jews in Seattle. Now, is Mel an anti-Semite as so many have said or was he just drunk as some of his defenders say? I wouldn't be surprised either way. You sometimes can't tell, but I do know one thing. Mouthing off is not near as bad as shooting someone.

Of course, whether someone being offended gets media play depends too often on who is offending and who is offended. The Mohammad cartoons were big news, and newspapers in this country were more than willing to kowtow to offended Muslims by not showing the pictures. Here’s a thought. How are readers supposed to know if the Muslim rioting over the cartoons was unreasonable if they never actually see the offending cartoons? Actually, I think we all know the real reason why papers like the NY Times didn’t want to show the cartoons. They didn’t want the Religion of Peace to firebomb their office. It’s a Hell of a lot easier to offend non-Muslim religions because they have a tendency to not do such things. There’s a play out there that depicts Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals which I find much more offensive than a couple of cartoons of Mohammad. Yet, while there have been some protests and hollow threats, I don’t see the Christian community rioting over this.

With this fresh on my mind, I come across something that makes me think any entertainment figure that jumps on Gibson is a hypocrite because they haven’t said a thing about Madonna. Gibson made some rather unpleasant comments about Jews while drunk. Madonna has deliberately taken the Crucifixion, one of the holiest acts in Christianity, and appears to be mocking it in a concert. I freely admit I have a long way to go to be a good Christian, but how on earth can someone look at what she’s doing and not think it’s highly offensive to Christians. Yet, the only complaints are from religious leaders. No one from entertainment or politics is demanding that Madonna apologize. Why not?

I really shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve never thought that much of Madonna’s singing ability or her choice of songs. One of my fraternity brothers was a huge fan, but he could never get me to understand what the fuss was about. I always figured his little head was the part that liked her. Oddly enough, Shane was a big Madonna fan, but he thought the song by the Divinyls, “I Touch Myself”, was disgusting. I guess a female singing about having a little afternoon delight by herself is bad, but doing it onstage with a Puerto Rican flag is okay. Suffice to say, I never “got” why Madonna was so popular. When I’d hear her songs, the best ones were listenable, but that’s not really an endorsement. For the most part it’s been pedestrian dance music. As with most straight white males (Jesco White being the exception), I can’t dance so I certainly have a bias against dance music.

However, the career of Madonna has been as much promoting herself through outrageous behavior as it has been about her music. Usually when you have to do that, your music doesn’t stand on its own. For example, Marilyn Manson was nothing when it was fronted by a somewhat normal but unattractive man named Brian Warner (unattractive isn’t a problem for male rock singers, just boy band members). Get a makeover to look like an idiot and tell everyone you’re satanic and suddenly you have a following. It doesn’t matter that your music is still crap.

I just think that what we accept and reject as religiously offensive is skewed quite a bit. However, I must admit that Madonna's antics did lead to a great quote from the Daily Gut website - "It's funny that Madonna's greatest achievement in her life will be the unification of religious leaders under one belief - that Madonna sucks."