A Fool's Journey?

Well, we are 1/2way through the two-weeks of Super Bowl hype. About two days in ESPN had a poll asking if we preferred a one or two week gap between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. I believe about 60% were going for one week. I, however, voted for two weeks. Immediately afterward I felt like vomiting and seriously considered putting a fork through my eye.

What was I thinking?

Seriously--

Being pro-Super Bowl hype is like being pro-nausea. Like rooting for the Yankees. Like mixing smack with your methadone treatment--

Where was I?

Some things deserve mockery. Like Super Bowl halftime shows. And like the pre-Super Bowl hype....These days the mockery is part of the hype--you know, the ironic, smug, above-it all part? Think of it as a tonic, or a chaser, to ease the consumption of even more hype. Necessary to delay vomiting....hopefully.

Bad Pix/Bad Weather/Good Omens?

Well, last week I said I probably wasn't going to bet any of the playoff games, and I haven't--yet. I don't think I'm going to either. There are too many teams I either like (Bears), feel semi-obliged to root for (Pats), as well as the hugely sentimental favorite (Saints), so I prefer to sit back and let things unfold without having anything extra at stake.

Especially when I keep getting my picks wrong anyway. (1-5 playoffs--ick!)

The conventional wisdom when handicapping playoff games is to not pick underdogs unless you think they can win outright. Usually this works. This runs contrary to te regular season conventional wisdom, which says that favorites tend to be overvalued, hence underdogs tend to be a better bet. Ironically, favorites in the playoffs are probably more overvalued, because the linesmakers have to account for the fact that with much fewer games each week, these games will get much more action. Linesmakers need to inflate the spreads to keep the action from going too strongly for the favorites. They are potentially a couple of blowouts away from getting killed.

So why does it tend to work out to pick favorites in the playoffs? My theory is that the best teams tend to bring their best game when something is at stake, when it is win or go home. Their wins will tend to be by more than the spread because they will do their best to bury the other team, if only to ensure that they make the next round.

This year the favorites have won every NFC game, but none of them have covered. You can see the problem this poses for the conventional wisdom regarding playoff games. My current theory is that the "pick the winner to cover outright" theory only works for good teams, and the NFC teams are not that good.

My initial reaction upon hearing the spreads for last weeks games was that neither the Bears nor the Saints should be favored by their resepctive 9 or 5.5 points. In addition to the conventional wisdom that says to go with the winners in the playoffs, I also read that the home teams/bye teams in the second round have won something like 81% of games played since the NFL went to the current playoff format. I'm not sure how many of these teams covered, but according to the theory it should be a significant majority of them. So I end up convincing myself that a fresh Saints team could blow out a weary Eagles team. I probably would have ended up taking the Bears, despite the fact that their defense Has been giving up plenty of points lately (20+ for the last 6 games) if not for the rumors that Rex Grossman routinely inhales lines that could circumnavigate Soldier field.

I still like the Bears at home against Seattle better than the Steelers at a neutral site, particularly a dome, provided that they are playing well...

But maybe I'm just biased. The Bears have been my second favorite NFL team for a long time....

Meanwhile, the Saints look like a team of destiny, and I can't say that I'd be upset if they beat the Bears today. It reminds me of the 1986 World Series. The Mets were my second favorite MLB team, but I would've been Happy for Boston and the Red Sox if they had won, and it was sad that they lost the way they did. I suppose in the end it made the 2004 season, complete with the greatest comeback ever against the hated Yankees all the sweeter.

I suppose if the Saints won in a couple of years it would still be pretty sweet, but nothing could top them winning this year, after they were exiled for a year by hurricane Katerina. Like they say, you couldn't write this stuff.

But there's a problem. Whoever wins between the Bears and the Saints will still have to face Indianapolis or New England.

I don't see the Bears beating either of these teams. They might have a shot if they were at home, especially against a dome team like the Colts, but on a neutral site, with decent weather? Doubtful. Their defense has been less reliable than their quarterback, of late. Where does that leave them?

This week it leaves them relying on (at the moment) lets see....29 degree weather, a 13 mph wind, and snow/freezing rain. Currently we are 4 hours before kickoff. Wow. I feel like the weather is about to talk me into taking the Bears. Sunset will be at 4:52 p.m., or about the end of the game.

The Saints went over 200 yards on the ground last week. If they can be effective on the ground the weather might not bother them too much. Still....freezing rain?

There are times to take the road team in the playoffs. This might be one of them, especially given the vulnerability Chicago has shown. Still, it's looking like Bear weather. I'm not betting, but Chicago 24, New Orleans 21 feels about right. So does 27-24. The Bears are favored by 2.5, so I guess that's a pick for them.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if Bill Belichek has figured out that the Colts haven't been blowing teams out this year, so he can afford to be patient on offense. (Or can he? Everything I've been reading about the Pats has them vulnerable defensively, so maybe ol' Bill has a reason to be in panic mode. Still, the Colts have only two touchdowns so for in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Adam Vinatieri has 8 field goals. Thats why I'm saying Indianapolis 26, New England 24. Is 12 field goals a playoff record? Since the Colts are favored by 3, that was a pick for the Pats. And Adam Vinatieri. Incidentally, the Accuscore computer picks Indianapolis, 23-21. Since this is based on an average of a bunch of simulations, I'm assuming the computer didn't pick this score with number 4's leg in mind, but I like this score too.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention my omen. I was in the motorpool two days ago when I found a winter hat. With a New England Patriots logo on it. Does this bode well or ill for the Pats? When I buy team's paraphanalia they tend to lose their next playoff game, or to have just lost a playoff game. I found a Bears winter hat once, but it took them two more years to make the playoffs, then lose to Carolina, so as omens go, that one may not have applied. Hmmm.... Where's my psychic friend when I need her?...

Inside Info/roQQ gossip

An interesting thing happened on the way to this week's playoff picks.

No, I'm not talking about embarrassing myself and going 1-3 last week, with Ohio State's humiliation thrown in for good measure. Not that that wasn't interesting, mind you.

I was playing on Full Tilt, since

a.) Most of my $$ online is there and

b.) My bodog account is more or less crippled from this year's football season.

Today I won my way from $1900-something, up to the mid $2300's, but that wasn't what was interesting. In fact, right now, having gone about 10 hours, and through seasons 1 and 2 of Seinfeld, I'm fairly bored with it.

No, what was interesting was the conversation at the last table. Here it is:

A: what channel prsent the 1st NFL game 2morro?
B: not sure
A: just hope its not ESPN
B: i goota decide my parlay for it
C: why are you using parlay in the same sentence as football?
B: i smell em better than a bot
B: im a machine
A: AFC i go with Baltimore, NFC I'm with bears
C: Bears will go down fast
A: not against Seattle,
A: maybe NFC championship
C: grossman throws 3 picks, 2 fumbles
C: true
A:i dont think either way, NFC can win the superbowl
B: i started w/ 250 in my sb acc
B: got 4.5k
A: cantXXX
B: from football this year
B: ive been great
B: ive been on
C: the NFC would need an absolute miracle
B: bet on osu mich almost ev week
A: yeah
B: they were machines
B: laid off em in the bowls
B: so glad
B: i went to uofm
B: and i h8 lsing money on them
A: grossman can make the team lose, but will not make them win for sure
B: he's on blow
B: no joke
B: from high school on
A: the best thing he can do, is not make any mistake
B: he loves
B: it
B: my boy in frat went to high school w/ em
B: he loved the blow
B: sexy rexy
B: cant you tell from his new yrs quote
B: he like "thinking about partying"...sniff
D: should have put griese in 7-8 games ago
B: hes ok if he's not slangin
B: hope he had pure during off wk
B: he got bad &%%!
B: u guys need hest to get it done
B: seattles sec is toast
B: missing 3 starters
D: i thing grossman has given up more points that the defense
B: some dude wrk at bowling alley is playing saftey
B: no joke
B: so tough to bet against pats
B: they made me bank over the yrs in playoffs
B: as long as phillip doesnt f uc up
C: u know belichek will confuse the @!@# out of rivers
C: but It is amazing
roQQ BoTTom: B
Q: where rex go to high school

He didn't answer. I wik'ed it, and Rex went to high school in Indiana. If I cared to get more specific than that I could check it again, but I didn't expect a more specific answer than Indiana, so what the heck.

At the moment I am watching an episode in Seinfeld Season 5 where Jerry's accountant may or may not be speanding Jerry's $$ on blow (Episode 4--I jsut checked). He sniffs alot, and goes to the bathroom alot, but apparantly he may merely be allergic to a Moahir sweater. I won't ruin the ending here....

I love Seinfeld. So true to life.

So is a bye week enough to get Rex clean? Will be binge out even harder? Are the Bears' warmups made of Mohair?

"B" clearly is a liar. He is claiming that he increased his sports betting account nearly 2000% in a season. Please. On the other hand, the frat boy stories still ring true to life. As for making money taking the Pats in the playoffs, on one hand it's certainly possible, on the other, anyone could claim it. Hmmmmmmmm.

Could the statements Rex made about not focusing because Green Bay was a meaningless day be a message that while he had been dreaming of a "White Christmas," he is now focused on bringing the Bears to the Super Bowl? If he is a cokehead, you can be sure that a good chunk of the team knows it. Are a good chunk of them coked up as well? Has the Chicago defense slowed in recent weeks because half of them are mesmerised by the sidelines? Do they continually have to remind themselves that all that white stuff on the field is just paint?

You may think that I am leading up to picking the Seahawks+9. And perhaps I should be. On the other hand, it isn't hard to imagine a team with at least a few cokeheads filling key positions. Maybe the '96 Cowboys. Okay, '94. Pick your year, whichever one had the 'boys at their most strong out, and they would have kicked the tar out of these Seahawks.

Look what the Steelers did in the Super Bowl with a quarterback that had just been shredded to pieces by a wicked combination of motorcyle, pavement, and a helmet he left on a shelf at the store.

What? The accident happened after the Super Bowl? Well, they were still led by a guy who may be an idiot, arguably has issues with risk assesment, and who definitely achieved a ridiculously low quarterback rating while beating Seattle by...11. That was indoors at a theoretically neutral site, not in the cold at Soldier Field.

Meanwhile, Saturday has two other games before the Bears ever take the field. When I originally got the lines over the phone, I thought Baltimore was favored by 1.5. What a steal! Indeed. The Ravens are actually favored by four, and I'm still taking them. I like the outdoors, the Ravens' defense, and the bye week in this one. (If I was only giving 1.5 I would love them.)
BALTIMORE(-4)overindianapolis.

When the lines came out I was leaning towards Phily because the number seemed too big. New Orleans beat them earlier in the year, but only by 3, 27-24. Now the line is up to 6 on bodog, but I think I have to take the Saints anyway. The Saints should be a much more confident team now, and their homefield advantage should be huge. Throw in their bye week and I think a Phily team that could barely beat the Giants will be ripe to fold against a team with this much good karma. SAINTS(-6)overeagles. I can't go against the Saints at this point. I just can't do it.

AFC picks/ND Continues Streak

After toying with the idea of runjning with the dogs in the AFC (the Chiefs and Jets) for most of the week, the moment of truth has come, and I just can't do it. As much as I want to take a great running back against a terrible run defense, in the end I have to take Peyton Manning at home, especially against a team as lousy as the Chiefs have been on the road this year. Despite this I just may find myself whole-heartedly rooting for the Chiefs in this one. I'll be going against the Colts soon enough, but I think it is too soon. Of course, I thought that last year too.
INDY(-7)overkansascity. The worst scenario? The Colts win but don't cover. Yeah, that's what I was going to bet on before.

Meanwhile, I almost find the 8.5 point spread against the Jets insulting. Everyone was so quick to turn on them last year when injuries derailed their season, and this year people have been rather slow to take them seriously again. That having been said, who of these first round teams would you feel safe puting your money on? Really, the Pats and the Colts are the only ones. These days, just the Pats. The Colts are doomed, only te Chiefs probably won't be the ones to finish them off. Even if the Jets should be 5.5 or six point dogs, the line has to be bigger, because everyone wan't to take the Pats. How big a line would it take to scare off the bettors? Maybe 10, 10.5. 8.5 almost got me, but not quite. I was almost prepared to take the Jets, and count on their scrappiness to keep it close, until I remembered that they no longer have a running game. Ick. NEWENGLAND(-8.5)overnyjets.

That having been said, and having taken the favorites in both the NFC games, I am fairly certain that at least on undrdog will cover, and I tend to think one will win outright. If that happens, I have to think it will be the Cowboys or the Chiefs. The Chiefs have a tremendous advantage whenever they run the ball, and the Cowboys probably do have a more talented team than the Seahawks, which is why Bill Simmons picks them. But how many times has he gone against a team with a shaky, +/or rookie quarterback on the road, especially when the opposing team has as certifiable of a home-field advantage as the 'Hawks do? That having been said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Seahawks won by 2, or 4 (or lost). They weren't exactly blowing teams out last year. Why would they start now?

Simmons basically picks the Cowboys because they have more potential to got deep into the playoffs than the Seahawks do. I'm taking Seattle because I take the Cowboys' potential to choke very seriously, though not as seriously as I take that of the Giants. Simmons takes them because the number is too big. He has a point, but this is the only reason I can see to take the G-men. The best thing about a Giants victory would be watching them implode even more dramatically the following week. Kind of like the Colts, but I expect the Colts to go down in the second round, the Giants in the first.

Fuck it. I'm taking KC and the points. They just have to keep it close. The Colts don't blow teams out like they used to.

Hmmmmmmmmm. After all my concerns about LSU possibly being overrated, they blow out Notre Dame worse than USC or Michigan, 41-14. I guess you shouldn't measure a team by how they do against Ole Miss...or Notre Dame.

I have teased Ohio State and the over, as I expected to. I'm considering this for the Chiefs-Colts game, but will probably just pick the game, for the sake of tradition. This is the playoffs, after all.

Scum Rise to NFC Playoff Berths

Good God. The smoke has cleared, and we have our Wild Card matchups for the NFL playoffs. What a bunch of stinkers. I don't think I can take any of the bottom 4 NFC seeds seriously. What gives the eventual winners of these 1st round games hope is that the Bears and Saints may not deserve to be taken too seriously either. Still, I think home field advantage will prove to be decisive in the end, at least until the NFC title game. By that time we should be able to see if anybody is up for pulling off a victory at Soldier Field, assuming that it hasn't already happened (see: Carolina Panthers '05-'06). Lets start at the bottom.

The Giants finished the season 8-8, losing 6 of 7 games before beating a Redskin team with nothing to play for last week, which is more than the Cowboys can say. They managed to lose to the Lions, who actually had incentive to lose. Dallas' dismal performance may have cost the Lions a franchise quarterback. In any case they no longer have the first pick in the draft.
Dallas gets to play at Seattle, who managed to lose 3 straight before winning their final game at Tampa Bay. A few weeks ago I definitely would have taken Dallas in this game, but at this point I cant see taking them against a confirmed home-field advantage like Seattle's, especially with a rookie quarterback who appears to be floundering. A few weeks ago Romo didn't bother me either, but that was pre-flounder, so to speak. So, SEATTLE(-3)overdallas.

I don't think anybody saw the Philadelphia Eagles winning the NFC East without Donovan McNabb. In fact, I'm not sure that they're chances were so hot with him either, what with their relative lack of a running game and what not, but now that coach Andy Reid figured out that you have to be able to run effectively to win, backup quarterback Jeff Garcia has filled in admirably well. Meanwhile, the Giants have been imploding for weeks, and their lack of discpline and team chemistry has been the story of the season here. Don't let Tiki Barber's imminent retirement fool you. The Giants aren't going to win one for Tiki, or for themselves. I'm hoping in the off-season they get desperate enough to go get Terrell Owens from the Cowboys, then go 4-12 next year. T.O. would be the perfect addition to this tumultuous team.

That having been said, do I really want to give seven points? Not really, but I have to count on the Giants to self destruct. What else are they good for? PHILLY(-7)overnygiants.

Do the Jets really deserve to be 8.5 point dogs at New England? They covered for me twice in the playoffs two years ago. I'll probably end up taking them again, but I'm still considering. I don't like going against the Pat's much either. (Nobody does; that's why they're favored by 8.5.)

Meanwhile, the Chiefs are a 7 point dog at Indy. Right now I'm trying to decide if I'll feel dumber taking a team as bad on the road as Kansas City has been, or giving 7 with the worst team in the league against the run when they are playing against Larry Johnson. I'm not sure how the seedings work out, but I'm hoping that if the Colts win they go to San Diego, so they can face LaDanian Tomlinson. They might be able to give up 500 on the ground in two games, with 6 touchdowns. Anybody ever win two games doing that? The Colts are another darling of the bettors, but they don't blow teams out like they used to....

My Cotton Bowl pick of Auburn(-2.5)overNebraska came true...barely 17-14. Meanwhile, I have good news and bad news from the Rose Bowl. The bad news? Michigan failed to cover, losing outright, 32-18. The good news? I forgot to place my bet, leaving me 1-0 so far this year in Bowl game bets if not in picks.

It seems like something generally goes wrong if I bet on Michigan. In the Notre Dame game I intended to try for a middle, but couldn't, due to the line moving, so I only bet on Michigan, and in this case I intended to bet on Michigan, but didn't. Betting on Michigan as a Michigan State alum is kind of like shooting junk when you are on methadone. You can do it, but you are probably going to end of vomiting all over yourself. (It is methadone I'm referring to, right? I really need to keep up on this stuff--maybe Ewan McGregor covers this in the Extras of my Trainspotting Collecters Edition. Or I could Wikipedia it....

Meanwhile, my trigger finger is itching to go against Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl, (especially now that the line is back down to 9.5) but whenever I try to do researh on LSU I find little tidbits like they beat Ole Miss by 4 this year at home. Oh, wait--no, they only won by 3. Somehow when everybody raves about how ultra-competative the SEC is, they aren't about to go wheeling out their 3 point victories against Ole Miss as evidence. How about a 4 point victory at Tennessee? That's better. Better than losing to them by three last year, while N.D. beat them by 20 anyway. Of course, Notre Dame could whip out the doll against the Vol's, but against the Tigers? New Orleans is voodoo country, and the Tigers are on their home turf. Even if the Irish could use the voodoo option against LSU, you have to let those dark Gods sleep when you're playing against their hometown boys. Unless you're willing to bamboozle them with an orgy of blood sacrifice more obscene than, say, the Orange Bowl halftime show that is. Not that Notre Dame is above that sort of thing, mind you. But with Brady Quinn considering tanking one so as not to get drafted by the Raiders (or Lions, hopefully) and with Samardja resting his arm for the Cubs minor league circuit, the Irish might be better off saving their karma to fight another day. Too bad, because LSU just might be the most overrated, overhyped team since...Notre Dame.