YOU'RE LUCKY MORRIS CLAIBORNE EVEN TOOK THE WONDERLIC FOR YOU BASTARDS

You're welcome for the five year old pop culture reference. My 15th podcast of the year with Cousin Sal will be out on Thursday. Anyways, some goon from Foxsports.com is not happy that Claiborne's dreadful Wonderlic score got leaked. Now, is his obvious inability to answer basic logic and math questions under timed conditions the most hilarious thing of all time? No, monkeys dressed as astronauts are. But is it worth a little bit of snark? Of course. When the test creators supposedly say you need to get a 10 to be classified as illiterate, a 4 is... well, it's not good. The guy doesn't deserve to be excoriated for it but I think the situation is worth a few chuckles, especially since 1) he's probably already a professional athlete, given that he goes to LSU, IF YOU GET MY DRIFT, and 2) he's about to be a top 10 draft pick. But Foxsports dude doesn't agree with that sentiment. Boy does he ever not.

(FWIW, I don't really buy this below 10 = illiterate thing, unless there are somehow a decent number of questions on the exam that don't include any words. I guess you could say that someone guessing all As or all Bs or whatever can get a 10, and Claiborne couldn't meet that, but let's cut the guy some slack, I'm sure he can read. LITERALLY.)

Anyways, let's the mitigating information out of the way first.

[Claiborne] also has a learning disability.

According to Greg Gabriel at the National Football Post, Claiborne’s disability — though not specified— isn’t a secret around the league. When he was recruited out of high school, it was made clear to the various big-time college programs courting him that he’d need academic advisors and assistance in the classroom once he selected a school.

Fortunately he chose a school that doesn't require athletes to visit places like classrooms and advisors' offices. Although more power to him if he chose to do so.

After deciding to attend LSU, Claiborne didn’t fade away and let the rigors of the college environment swallow him whole. He worked with tutors and utilized LSU’s various on-campus learning resources to get the grades he needed to stay academically eligible and compete.

So there you go. Good on him. He's got a disability, he works with it, he's tried hard to be a good student. Still, he got like the lowest Wonderlic score ever. Ever. Even Vince Young out-tested this guy. So with all the background bullshit out of the way let's get to the Chris Crocker stuff.

The real issue is that the report was even leaked at all. Whether true or false, it’s a nefarious act

Whoa. Ease up, 1860s newspaper writer describing the Lincoln assassination.

from an individual or individuals who clearly have some incentives to damage a young man.

Or an individual or individuals who are just being low-level jerks by relaying a part sad/part hilarious piece of information to the public.

Did the score come from a team that wants to draft Claiborne and thought the information would stray another team away from doing so?

Could've.

Or was it from an agent trying to better position his own client, potentially a top cornerback, himself?

Also could've. Do we want to stick with "nefarious?" Are "dastardly" or "opprobrious" still available?

You’ll drive yourself crazy playing Andy Sipowicz trying to figure that one out.

If it's one of those two things, which seems plausible if not likely, it's a little shady but not surprising given the stakes of the draft. And definitely not worth shitting your shorts over.

But we should know.

We should have the name of the tough guy

I doubt this person thinks they're tough. They probably think they're a hilarious troll.

who went public with information that’s supposed to be highly confidential.

HE SHOULD BE MADE TO FACE JUSTICE FOR HIS NON-CRIME

The NFL conducts these tests in what are described as highly secure environments.

Read: some emptied-out equipment room in Lucas Oil Stadium with a few folding tables set up.

The results are not intended to be leaked. And yet, here we are today, and Claiborne’s woeful Wonderlic is the biggest football headline of the day.

And yet, the Earth continues to spin on its axis while rotating the sun.

The truth is, Claiborne’s score won’t impact his draft stock in April. I assure you that he’ll be the first cornerback taken in the draft, regardless of how he performed with a No. 2 pencil in Indy.

I misrepresented things when I said this guy was acting like Chris Crocker- he's acting half like Chris Crocker and half like Claiborne's mom.

He’ll get over it. He’ll use it as motivation. He’ll come out angry and he’ll have a fine NFL career. This will all be forgotten and five years from now, the same message board commenters that were mocking him today will be wearing his jersey and selling his game-used mouth guard on eBay.

Probably not.

But the slime that sheepishly — and worse off, anonymously — shared his score with a media outlet will never have to deal with it.

Holy shit, who cares? I bet Claiborne doesn't. (Earlier in the article there is a paragraph about how Claiborne defended himself on Twitter in a calm, humorous, and light hearted fashion.) I know I certainly don't.

He’ll continue to sit on his computer

I BET HE'S ONE OF THOSE COMPUTER PEOPLE WHO LIKES COMPUTERS! THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF SHENANIGANS THEY PULL!

behind a desk and just know that he made a good kid feel bad today.

He's about to get like $10MM in guaranteed money. I think he's OK with things, especially if his disability is known throughout the league already.

He’ll know that he leaked a kid with a learning disability’s standardized test score to the world without providing any of the context that should have gone along with it.

HOW DARE HE NOT ALSO MENTION ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE EVER GONE WRONG FOR CLAIBORNE TOO, LIKE THE FACT THAT HE WAS FEELING KIND OF GASSY DURING THE TEST AND THAT HE WAS BUMMED OUT AT THE COMBINE BECAUSE HE LOST HIS CELL PHONE THE WEEKEND BEFORE?

He’ll sleep fine and likely won’t have to face any repercussions.

But I wish he would.

We got it, thanks.

Roger Goodell’s all about security and the purity of the game. His stance on Bountygate was aggressive and firm. If the NFL is going to ask its draft prospects to take an exam under the assumption that the results won’t be made public, they should honor that agreement. Otherwise, why would any of these kids even bother?

That's great stuff. I'd do the multiple copy and paste thing but I'm tired and it's late. But just to summarize: league office's harsh stance on players allegedly trying to injure other players means league is hypocritical if it doesn't do a better job of safeguarding written test scores. Spectacular. I hope more shitty football writers try to lump anything that goes slightly wrong in the NFL this season into the bounty scandal. "Sure the league PRETENDS to care about safety when Brett Favre's ankles are involved, but where is the justice for Chargers fan Bob Q. Smith, who had half a beer dumped on him while watching his team play in Oakland? IT AIN'T RIGHT."

Morris Claiborne could have walked out of that room and said, “I’ll be a top-10 pick regardless of what I score on this. What’s the point?” Hell, if his score’s going to be discussed on SportsCenter three weeks before the draft, he should have done that.

What? What are we talking about?

If you’re going to hold these kids responsible and ask them to honor their end of the pre-draft process, you should hold all parties responsible for it, too.

Including people who circumvented what was likely a lax security process and made a day's worth of headlines by leaking an awesome player's abominable score!

Maybe I’m getting too worked up over this.

No, I think you're pretty much being rational and measured about it. Sincerely, people who bitch endlessly about instant replay in MLB.

FMTMQR: Now with Youtube links so you can actually see what an asshole Gregg is

Is he capable of complaining about Christmas creep less than a week before Christmas? Read on to find out.

Ho ho ho! Here's what TMQ has asked Santa to leave each NFL team under its tree for Christmas morning:

Ho ho ho! Here's a series of lame jokes:

Atlanta -- An identity. The Falcons are on a blazing 15-2 run, yet are known for what, exactly?

The only reason other teams are known for something, like Pittsburgh for its NASTY (steroid-fueled) DEFENSE and New England for its gritty white receivers, is because those teams have large national fan bases. Atlanta is a horrible sports town and no one gives a shit about the Falcons. If they had bandwagoners from coast to coast hooked on their success, you'd hear a ton about their #5 scoring offense and how Matt Ryan is the next Roethlisberger.

Buffalo -- A complete set of jerseys from the 1990s Super Bowl run. It's no coincidence the Bills have not made the playoffs since switching to the league's ugliest uniforms.

Their new uniforms are essentially the same as their old ones. The title for league's ugliest uniforms resides safely with the Seahawks.

Chicago -- A game in Florida.

Because they lost one game to the league's best team when it was snowing.

Cleveland -- A dawg who can play football: "Fetch the pass!" Ideal marketing gimmick.

Fail.

Detroit -- A Rand McNally road atlas with all NFL cities except Detroit missing. If the Lions can't find the road games, they won't have to play them.

This was written about 24 hours after the Lions won on the road against a non-horrible team.

Green Bay -- A water slide so Aaron Rodgers can practice sliding.

Unfunny.

Jersey/B -- A recording of Ronald Reagan saying, "Tear down this wall!"

Maybe it makes me an idiot, but I'm lost here.

Minnesota -- Brett Favre plays until eligible for membership in AARP.

Douchechills.

Philadelphia -- DeSean Jackson cast as the lead in a revival of the musical "Show Boat."

More on this later.

Seattle -- No restrictions on phone calls, official visits and scholarships when Pete Carroll goes recruiting in the upcoming free-agency period.

OK, see that's actually funny.

In other football news, if it has come to pass that Favre will tape his ankles no more, consider how his final seasons concluded. Last play of 2007 season for the Packers: interception. Second-to-last play of 2008 season for the Jets: interception. Last play of 2009 season for the Vikings: interception. Last play of 2010 season for the Vikings: sack. All's well that ends well!

Agreed, although his last play in 2008 wasn't an interception. He completed a pass, then received a lateral from the receiver (desperation time), then was absolutely CRUSHED while trying to throw another lateral and drew a penalty for illegal forward pass in the process. So really it's better to think of it as: 2007 interception, 2008 penalty + JACKED UP, 2009 interception, 2010 sack + JACKED UP.

In other news, Tuesday Morning Quarterback sends holiday good wishes to all space aliens, mega-babes and football enthusiasts. Bells are ringing all across the local star cluster!

What. The fuck. Are you talking about? /insert Chris W's jpeg from last post here

Sweet Quarter of the Season After being down 31-10 on the road at Jersey/A with 8:17 remaining, the Eagles won. This comeback ranks with Buffalo's comeback from 35-3 against the old Houston Oilers in 1993. That comeback took an entire half; Philadelphia's warp-speed comeback happened in eight minutes.

Buffalo's was in the playoffs, with Frank Reich at QB. Point: 1992 Bills. Not that what Philly did wasn't amazing.

Jackson is electrifying. But when he broke into the clear for the touchdown that would make this the first NFL game won by a punt return on the final play, he began waving the ball in the air at the G-Men 30-yard line even though he had already lost a fumble earlier in the quarter. Stop showboating! Dance after you score, not before. If Jackson

Tl;dr. As we've known for years, TMQ hates flashy players. Especially if they were drafted in the first round like Jackson was. But yeah, let's make sure to spend a whole paragraph complaining about Jackson celebrating that incredible moment.

As for the Giants' coaching: Has any coaching staff ever had a worse quarter? Ahead 31-10 with eight minutes remaining against the top big-play combination the NFL -- Michael Vick and Jackson -- if the Giants had gone to backed-off shell coverage and forced the Nesharim to nickel-and-dime their way down the field, the clock would have run out on any comeback.

The Giants are on national TV often enough (after all, they play in the most important and exciting division ever, a division which has produced a whole one Super Bowl winner and three NFC champs in the last 15 years; a division that surely deserves to be on national fucking TV every single fucking time any two of its fucking teams play a fucking meaningless game against one another, fuck you very much FOX) that I've seen them quite a bit this year. My roommate is also a diehard Giants fan. As such, I know for a fact that blitzing is one thing their defense does well. They often succeed when they get pressure on the QB and often fail when they don't. I'm not sure whether or not the Eagles could have scored 3 TDs in 8 minutes against base coverage, but I guarantee they would have moved the ball very quickly and effectively against it.

With the Eagles trailing 31-10, first-and-10 on their 35 with 7:43 remaining, Fewell called a safety blitz, resulting in a 65-yard touchdown pass to Brent Celek. On the play, deep safety Kenny Phillips whiffed so badly that he air tackled. The morning of the game, The New York Times ran an article lavishly praising the Giants' secondary -- guess those players read the article. "We're never out of position," Phillips was quoted as boasting.

Ah, welcome to the wonderful world of TMQ, where everything is nice and simple and can be explained by a single convenient little rule. When a play turns out poorly for a team, it's because several of its players were standing around doing nothing. Going for it on 4th down always leads to victory, no matter the result of the 4th down play; punting always leads to losing. Undrafted players are hardworking success stories, high drafted players are lazy assholes who expect the game to come to them with no effort. (I'm surprised TMQ didn't mention here that Phillips was a 1st round pick.) And of course, teams that say anything good about themselves and then subsequently lose must have lost because they have big egos. Guess what? Phillips was probably asked by a reporter to explain why the Giants have the 2nd best passing defense in the league, and he answered with something fairly innocuous (in terms of how braggy it was). It's not like he said "We're the best secondary in the history of organized football, take that to the bank, and fuck orphans and people with terminal diseases because they suck." Christ. Why do we need to crucify him because he gave an interview and then made a bad play? I hate TMQ more than anything in the world, including baseball writers.

Why safety blitz with a three-touchdown lead and less than eight minutes? Unless the plan was to humiliate the Eagles and then boast to the New York media.

Which it wasn't. Probably the most preposterous assumption/accusation I've ever seen TMQ make, which is saying something. Let's go to our old friend Occam's Razor and assume the plan was to, uh, WIN.

Humiliating an opponent is totally irrelevant; keep your focus on winning.

/Larry B frustratedly holds head in hands

Sweet Stat of the Week: The Flying Elvii have gone an NFL-record six games without a turnover -- very sweet -- and lead the league with a plus-20 turnover margin. In a league in which megabucks stars wave the rock around asking for turnovers, the Patriots protect the football. This must have something to do with their no-name, egoless offense. Big-ego players with big contracts, such as Roy Williams of Dallas, commit careless fumbles because they figure they will never be benched no matter what.

Roy Williams fumbles all the time for exactly three reasons: 1) he sucks 2) he's got a relatively weak and lanky upper body and 3) NFL DBs are really good at stripping the ball. Would he like to fumble less frequently (or preferably not at all)? Of course. Has there ever been a single moment at which he said to himself "Hey, I might as well keep fumbling- they're not going to cut me?" FUCKING N FUCKING O.

The undrafted free agents of the New England offense know they must perform to stay on the field. So they protect the football.

I like how the GREATRIOTS are being lauded for employing hardworking, egoless WRs. Meanwhile their coach and QB have two of the largest egos in football. Why does Roy Williams's ego drag him down, but Belichick's and Brady's egos result in only success? See my point 1) above as to why Williams fumbles, and also understand that Belichick and Brady definitely do not suck. Christ. I hate Gregg Easterbrook more than anything on this earth, including jewelry commercials.

Now let's enter the segment of the column where Gregg makes up facts to fit the explanations he wants to use. I'll provide video and other info where appropriate, so that you can see what actually happened rather than accepting Gregg's made up version of what happened.

Sour Pair of Plays: Pittsburgh and Denver both surrendered safeties in close fourth-quarter situations. The Steelers were attempting a slow-developing sweep from their end zone. Don't sweep from your end zone!

If you think the play call here was a sweep, you know nothing about football. (To be fair, the play definitely was slow-developing. But still.)

Sour Play of the Week: TMQ notes the distressing number of downs on which highly paid NFL performers simply stand around doing nothing or simply brush their men and then stand watching. New England leading 31-27, Green Bay had possession at the Patriots' 15 with five seconds remaining -- with one play to win or lose. The Flying Elvii rushed three; Packers right tackle Bryan Bulaga, a first-round pick this year who recently cashed a huge bonus check, brushed his man, then, doing nothing, turned around to see what was happening on the play.

If I were Bryan Bulaga, I would literally take a dump in a FedEx box and mail it to Easterbrook for that ridiculously inaccurate description of what happened on the play. This (start at the 3:30 mark), apparently, is what brushing your man and then standing around doing nothing looks like. Weird. There doesn't seem to be much brushing, just a regular block that was beaten thanks to some good DE play and bad luck as to where the QB moved in the pocket. And I certainly don't see any standing around or doing of nothing. But then again, what do I know? I'm someone who stands up for high drafted players who are obviously lazy shitheads who don't know how to play football. That's why they were all such failures at the college level.

Were those the Baltimore Ravens or the Wisconsin Badgers? Ravens coaches called 39 rushing plays and 23 passes, outrushing the defending champions by 181 yards. Vince Lombardi would have felt right at home at that contest. Let's hope his ghost wasn't watching the Packers-Patriots game, in which the Packers, yet again, went five-wide on first-and-goal at point-blank range.

OK, we get it, you don't have to bring it up every fucking week (which he does). Back in Lombardi's day teams ran a lot. Now they throw a lot (pass wacky!), sometimes when they only need a single yard. Will the wonders of the universe ever cease?

As for the Ming Ding Xiong ("Bears whose outcomes are decided by fate" in Chinese),

Probably the most annoying/least funny of all Easterbrook's team nicknames. It's a dead heat between this and Squared Sevens.

Devin Hester is back in business, which means the Bears are back in business. In 2006, Hester had five kick return touchdowns and Chicago reached the Super Bowl. In 2007, Hester had six kick return touchdowns but the Bears didn't make the postseason.

Well that leads us to conclude... uh...

In 2008 and 2009, no return touchdowns for Hester, no playoffs for Chicago. This year, Hester has three kick return touchdowns and the Bears are division champs. So when Hester doesn't run back a kick for six, the Bears do not make the playoffs; when he does, they are 2-for-3 in reaching the postseason.

Such valuable insight can only be gained by reading the musings of a man who knows absolutely nothing about football.

Pregame, viewers saw that Ron Jaworski was wearing an elaborate zoot-suit-inspired heavy coat with gloves and Mike Tirico wore a sportcoat, sweater vest and no gloves. Immediately I knew that Tirico would have a better game, which he did. Cold Broadcaster = Victory.

Worst bit ever.

TMQ's Law of the Obvious Holds: Sometimes All a Team Needs to Do is Run Up the Middle: Was that really the Pittsburgh Steelers in a shotgun spread on third-and-2 at home in bad weather? Jersey/B snapped out of its funk and won on the strength of two terrific special-teams plays in the fourth quarter -- punts downed on the Hypocycloids' 1 and 8. But even in victory, the Jets' offense seemed fouled up. Thrice in the final three minutes, holding the lead in a kill-the-clock situation, Brian Schottenheimer called a passing play. Thrice the result was an incompletion that stopped the clock. Had the Jets simply run up the middle for no gain, there would not have been enough time left for the home team's almost-comeback.

I did a Youtube search for "wrong," hoping to find a clip of Charlie Murphy on Chapelle's show yelling "WRONG. WRONG." during the Rick James sketch. It wasn't there. There was a kind of funny clip of Dr. Cox from Scrubs singing "wrong" over and over but it wouldn't quite create the effect I wanted so I decided to link to nothing. Instead I will just say that as usual, Gregg is 100% wrong.

Check this out: presumably the three plays he's referring to are the two pass plays on 2nd and 5 and 3rd and 5 that ended the Jets' drive that started at 7:09, and the pass on 3rd and 3 that ended their final drive of the game. As of the first of those plays, the Steelers had all three timeouts. That means that even if we switch the 2nd and 5 and 3rd and 5 plays from the 7:09 mark to runs of 0 yards, the Steelers still get the ball back for their 2:45 drive (the one play drive that ended with a safety) at the same time but with just one timeout. Then, after the safety, when the Jets get the ball back at 2:38, assume they ran for zero yards three times in a row before punting. After the first, the Steelers call a timeout. After the second, the clock runs down to the two minute warning. And after the third, the Jets punt with about 1:20 left. Sure, the Steelers' last drive becomes a lot more difficult; they have about 50 fewer seconds, no timeouts, and no two minute warning. But Gregg isn't capable of that level of thought (which took me about 30 seconds to research and 2 minutes to write out). To him it's DERP DERP THREE RUNS UP THE MIDDLE EQUALS TWO MINUTES OFF THE CLOCK, STEELERS GOT THE BALL FOR THEIR FINAL DRIVE WITH 2:08 LEFT, BORK BORK BORK. I hate Gregg Easterbrook more than People and Us Weekly.

As Tuesday Morning Quarterback noted of Shanahan this past summer, "His big seasons all came with John Elway: in his non-Elway years, Shanahan's results are pedestrian." Left on his own without Elway, Shanahan is somewhere between average and a bumbler.

Left on his own without Elway, Shanahan made four playoff appearances in ten years with Denver. His record from 1999 until his firing was 91-69. Sure, he only won one game during those four playoff appearances and made a number of shitty personnel decisions. But he also won 57% of his regular season games. If that's average at best, who qualifies as a "good" NFL coach? Sure, the Redskins blow this year. Even TMQ has to admit that has a lot more to do with their ownership than with Shanahan.

The Curse of the Holiday Letter: Don't you hate boastful holidays letters about other people's fascinating lives and perfect children? Below is one Nan and I received last week.

Dear Friends,

What a lucky break the CEO sent his personal jet to pick me up from Istanbul; there's plenty of room, since I have the entire aircraft to myself, to take out the laptop and write our annual holiday letter. Just let me ask the attendant for a better vintage of champagne, and I'll begin.

It's been another utterly hectic year for Chad and I and our remarkable children, yet nurturing and horizon-expanding. It's hard to know

Tl;dr. Where is this going? It's obviously not a real letter but doesn't relate to anything else in the column and the only setup he provided is copied and pasted above. The fuck is going on here?

in Maine, and before we know it, we will be packing two cars to drive Rachel's things to college. And of course I don't count Davos or Sundance or all the routine excursions.

I hope your year has been as interesting as ours.

Love,
Jennifer, Chad, Rachel, Nicholas & Emily

(The above is inspired by a satirical Christmas letter I did for The New Republic a decade ago. I figure it's OK to recycle a joke once every 10 years.)

It is, as long as the joke is funny and you provide some context for it. Neither of those requirements were met here.

NFL teams might invest $20 million to $50 million in the starting quarterback -- you don't want a $50 million investment going off tackle. Colleges, by contrast, invest almost no money in their quarterbacks -- Newton got the same amount of scholarship funds as Auburn's third-stringers.

Or did he? *rimshot* TOPICAL!

With the Bolts leading 7-0, the Squared Sevens

Ugh. Yeah, definitely worse than Ming Ding Xiong.

kicked a field goal. San Diego was called for "leveraging," the second time in three weeks this unusual call has been made. Accepting the penalty took points off the board but gave San Francisco first-and-goal at the 10. Three snaps later, Alex Smith ran for what officials signaled was a touchdown, but San Diego challenged and the six points came off the board, too. Mike Singletary went for it on fourth-and-goal from the 1. High first-round draft choice guard Mike Iupati air-blocked -- he made contact with no one -- as undrafted Bolts defensive tackle Ogemdi Nwagbuo shot into the backfield to drop the runner for a loss, San Diego ball and zero points for San Francisco.

But... but... going for it on 4th and 1! Letting your team know you believe in them and you're in it to win it! Being a manly man! Not launching a fraidy-cat field goal/trying to reduce the margin of defeat rather than going for the win! What did Singletary do wrong? Someone, anyone, please make sense of this. If Singletary had elected to keep the initial field goal on the board or kicked after the successful challenge, what would TMQ have written about it? Yeah, I think we both know what he'd have said. What a self-contradicting asshole.

That's the kind of moment that makes TMQ love sports -- undrafted unknown gets the best of megabucks glory boy.

Oh brother, don't we ever know.

Mike Singletary wore dark glasses on the sideline for a night game -- Does he have any idea how ridiculous that looked? (Tony Sparano of the Dolphins wears dark glasses at all times because of an eye injury he suffered in youth; that's different.)

Right, a practice TMQ mocked Sparano for last season without knowing about the medical condition. Smooth move Gregg. I wonder if he makes fun of Michael J. Fox for not being able to keep his hands still. I hope Singletary's glasses were also medically necessary and another printed apology is in order. That shit never gets old.

Reader Stephen Levy of Washington, D.C., reports the annual Winter Concert at Nottingham Elementary in Arlington, Va., which was scheduled for Dec. 16 -- six days before winter begins --

WHY DIDN'T THEY CALL IT THE LATE LATE LATE FALL CONCERT? THAT WOULD MAKE SO MUCH MORE SENSE.

was "canceled due to wintery weather."

Hilarious. Almost like a beach closing down for a day because the sand is too hot! WHO SAW THAT COMING?

Manly-Man Play of the Week: The Chiefs continue to be a team after TMQ's heart, having gone for it on fourth down 21 times this season, including on fourth-and-1 at midfield against St. Louis on Sunday, converting.

When the 49ers do something similar, they're dumbasses.

The Jaguars lead the league with 22 fourth-down attempts, and, at Indianapolis, they went for it on fourth-and-1 from their own 39 on the first series of the third quarter. The result was a busted play -- fumbled pitch -- and a quick Colts touchdown in the other direction. But the idea was the right one.

Always, even though it led to a Colts touchdown in a game the Jaguars would go on to lose.

Jacksonville and Kansas City, both going for it on fourth down much more often than common in the NFL, both have winning records.

The 49ers continue to be run by idiots who go for it on 4th and 1 as if that's ever a good idea.

Bonus Obscure College Score of the Week: Wisconsin-Whitewater 31, Mount Union 21 (Division III championship). Five-foot-8, 170-pound Levell Coppage rushed for 299 yards -- mostly on power runs between the tackles -- as Whitewater took the Division III title from Mount Union for the second straight year.

Wow- can you believe it? A successful running back at that size, busting it up between the tackles? He's the next Woodhead! He's even better! He must be the greatest athlete of all time to succeed in the trenches against NFL competition at that size! Oh, you said college Division III? Well it makes much more sense now.

And I Can Make a Free Throw at 4:30 AM- So What?

Watching the NFL's RedZone channel, which is so worth the $50 it cost me for the season. So worth it. It's highly recommended. Anyways, at one point they cut to the Cardinals/Lions game, where the announcers had this to say about Daunte Culpepper:

I mean, the Cardinals have been saying all week that Culpepper is a guy who can make every throw. I mean, he can wake up at 3 AM and throw a spiral.

The fuck does that mean? Is it a figure of speech anyone uses to describe a talented QB? ("Talented" being used loosely in the case of Culpepper, of course.) I sure hope not.

The Important Part is that Andy Reid Looks Like a Bloated Walrus

Picking on things said by ESPN.com commenters is kind of like picking on things said by devout racists, the mentally ill, or Joe Morgan. I mean, it's kind of like the definition of low-hanging fruit. However I'm about to do exactly that. I think I'm justified in doing so because this particular comment was the "featured comment" on the website's front page last night. That is to say, out of every comment the site received on Sunday afternoon/evening, some clod at ESPN's offices thought this was the best/smartest/most relevant/most poignant/some combination of all of these. So I guess I'm more picking on that clod than the commenter himself, which I think is valid. Let's face it- how hard is that task? You go through a couple hundred comments and pick one that isn't stupid. And yet apparently it's not as easy as it sounds. How do I know that? Well, the NFL playoffs are down to four teams. Commenter 808forlife, what say you about their respective quarterbacks?
Donovan, Big Ben, and Warner are all Super Bowl QB's with plenty of big game experience. Flacco? Out of his league.

First of all, sir, I like your angle here. You have taken a controversial and not at all widely-held viewpoint and expressed it in a thought provoking way. Bully on you for that. But I digress; let's talk about why this is a "featured comment" worth blogging about. Here's what I'll give Mr. 808; Warner and Roethlisberger are legit. You won't find many people criticizing their big game credentials. Also, Flacco has never played in a conference championship game. (Although, to be fair, before last Saturday he had never played in a divisional playoff game and he didn't do too badly there. But let me get to the point.) So that's all well and good. Let's move past it and get to the retardery.

Take 100 reasonably passionate and well-informed sports fans. Ask them to do an association with you: say "Donovan McNabb," then say "big game," and ask them what's the next thing that comes to their mind. I am pretty sure that about 95 of them are going to say "Throwing up during the final drive of Super Bowl XXXIX." I mean, fair or not, that's just the first thing that comes to mind. Although the guy has had a moderate amount of playoff success, he's only made it to one Super Bowl and then allegedly lost his shit when the chips were down during that game. So I'm not entirely sure I'd rather have him over Joe "hey did you know rookies don't usually play well during the playoffs?" Flacco for the remainder of the NFL season. I'm not saying he's not good, but touting his big game credentials along with two guys who have actually won Super Bowls (without vomiting) is dumb. Thus, 808forlife/ESPN comment chooser, you've picked a real stinker here. You're both fucking morons, but one of you is just some asshole who comments on a sports website while the other is truly and completely terrible at his incredibly simple job. I guess I'd rather be the former than the latter.

Oh, and what about the other five fans who didn't associate McNabb and "big game" with throwing up during the Super Bowl? Four of them will say "Campbell's Chunky Soup" for some reason. And assuming the fifth is Jack M, he will say "Andy Reid is fat," which doesn't make a lot of sense in this context but is definitely true. That Jack is such a hater.

For Once, Dr. Z Entertains Me Without Being Flagrantly Dumb

Dr. Z is a lot of things. Crusty old crummudgeon. Possible asylum escapee. Poor writer. Idiot. But this is his day in the sun at FireJay, because he just wrote a very entertaining piece which not only claims that Brett Favre could've been a whole lot better but also calls out the media for constantly handling him with kid gloves. Now, I'm not a Favre/Packer hater. I acknowledge that he's great, and I really don't have anything horrible to say about him. The tone of what Dr. Z does here probably takes things a little too far; I mean, Favre has the all time win, TD and yardage titles in addition to a ring. It's a nearly peerless resume and should be treated as such. But I'm excited about this piece simply because it's such a breath of fresh air.

Who has guts to subtly shit all over a surefire hall of famer less than 12 hours after he retires? Who's going to implicitly call out John Madden and Peter King (along with others) for refusing to hold Favre to the same standards they use on every other QB in the league? Who's going to question whether or not he was the greatest QB in Packer history by referencing two guys no one's ever heard of from the 40s and 50s? Dr. Z, that's who. Hey, you don't land a lady like the Flaming Redhead unless you've got balls down to your shoes. There's a reason he looks so happy with himself in his CNNSI file photo. He says what he wants, when he wants, and that makes him a real man.

Remember the night in Oakland, when it was iffy whether he'd play, following his father's death? Four TD passes and 399 yards in the air was the legacy he left out there. But there were downers, too, and it only hurt Favre that the knights of the TV screen always were ready to make excuses for him.

His fourth quarter and overtime meltdown against the Giants last season, which put a sad end to a remarkably classy season? Never mind ... the redemption of the Giants' field-goal kicker was the angle. The goofy, looping interception that cost the Pack the Eagles' game in OT in the divisionals in 2004? Oh, let's put it on the defense for allowing McNabb his fourth-and-26 completion in regulation.

Always ready to make excuses, always braying about "what a good time he's having," that was the continual barrage from TV. Maybe a few frowns, a stern reprimand or two, might have toned down the wild maverick a little, but gosh, he sure is having fun out there. And that's what the game is all about, isn't it? Fun, boys acting like men and so forth.

Facial.

Also, I forgot to award a winner for last week's reader extra participation Friday. Thanks to everyone who submitted (Even you, Archie the Possible Cokehead. And yes there are still winners. Keep trying.), but I've got to hand this one to Matt for pointing out that:

Worst: Chess. Don't get me wrong, I like chess. But when Bobby Fisher died recently,players quoted in the flood of resulting articles kept citing all Fisher "had done for our sport." Seriously? Sitting at a table for days & taking hours to decide in which direction you want to move a tiny piece a total of about 3" qualifies as a sport? I think I burn more calories taking a dump than a chess player does in an entire match. Plus the title "Grandmaster" sounds suspiciously like "Grand Wizard," and that's just racist.

By A: almost never being on TV and B: not requiring any movement out of the participants (we're not counting moving your arms to move the pieces, fuck that), chess failed to meet two of my three stated criteria for being a "sport." So really, this submission shouldn't even count. So why am I giving it the title anyways? Fuck, man. Now that I think about it "Grandmaster" does sound a little bit racist. And wasn't Bobby Fisher a well-known anti-Semite? It's 2008, International Chess Governing Body Association Incorporated. I think it's time we moved past that kind of thing.

(Note: posts that point out what a fucking disaster Dr. Z is to resume shortly. This is a one time deal.)

Sure, I Could Write About Someone Else

But who would want to read that? Besides, Bill Simmons only writes about a column a week these days. (Probably because he just had a kid! Did you hear about that? He's trying to keep it a secret, but I guess the information leaked out somehow. Shucks! Seriously though, rest assured that if I ever get out of this basement and impregnate a woman, you readers will not be hearing about it. Unless she's much less ugly than I realistically anticipate her being.) So I've got to jump on anything he bothers to publish.

Overcrowding plagues NFL pregame shows

The same phenomenon is taking a real toll on Brett Favre's nuts these days. Hoo hoo! Pow! Larry B 1, Peter King 0.

I avoid the pregame shows unless I'm searching for a specific nugget of information, usually a weather report or an injury update for fantasy/gambling purposes. Before the Internet took off in the late '90s, these shows had real value because die-hards lacked the resources to follow 30 teams at once and needed as much information as possible, even if it came in the form of uninformed opinions from the mouths of Brent Jones and Joe Montana.

I hope Bill realizes that he is a popular sportswriter for one reason and one reason only: people like to read his uniformed opinions. I have no idea why, but that's clearly the case. Oh, maybe a handful of readers drop in for his razor sharp wit. Others might rarely love his ability to make hilarious pop culture references at the drop of a hat. Paris Hilton and Heidi from The Hills, LOL! And a few real winners out there might look to him for fantastic gambling advice, evidenced by his under .500 record picking against the spread during the past two years. But by and large, nearly everyone who reads him is doing so because they enjoy the exact kind of uninformed opinions he's mocking here. So although those pregame show talking heads aren't really saying much of anything important, there's obviously a market for people peddling drivel to be successful in today's sports media.

Now? We have the resources. Thanks to the 24/7 sports cycle, we digest an inordinate amount of information and opinion heading into the morning of the games. What else is left to say?

Well, by your own admission, there are weather and injury tips to be had. And beyond that, isn't making sweeping generalizations fun! Bill has failed to understand that maybe not everyone is like him. (Reminds me of the column he published last spring in which he expressed an inability to understand why not everyone loves the Patriots.) Maybe some people out there are casual viewers who aren't going to obsess over the weekend's action for days in advance. This is like making fun of newspapers because "everyone I know uses the internet for news these days." Sure, newspapers aren't exactly flourishing. But they're not about to disappear or become irrelevant just because other ways to get news are becoming more popular. There are still plenty of people who fully utilize them, because that's what they're comfortable with.

Even if the pregame shows still rate well, I don't know anyone who feels fully satisfied by them, and I don't know anyone who goes out of the way to watch them. We turn them on because it seems like the right thing to do.

Anecdotal. Bullshit.

I don't personally know anyone who likes "House," "Two and a Half Men" (or as one of my friends calls it, "Two Guys and a Fat Kid"), or "Dancing With the Stars," but I'm a big boy who understands the whole world doesn't think the exact same way I do about things. So I'm therefore willing to trust from the ratings that there are plenty of people who are very tickled by those programs. My personal opinion may be that they suck, but I'm not going to express it as "Because neither me nor my friends like them, I'm forced to conclude that the only reason people watch them is because nothing better is on and they've been fooled by the shows' promotional tactics. No one out there actually enjoys these shows. I'm 100% certain of it. The ratings are a lie, and all my opinions are fact. The moon landing never happened. Tupac is alive and partying on a Caribbean island with Robert Kennedy as we speak. And David Ortiz is objectively clutchier than any other athlete, ever."

There's a reason nobody would ever think to release the shows on DVD after the season.

It's the same reason no one would ever think to release "Sportscenter," "Access Hollywood," or any regular op-ed show from CNN or MSNBC on DVD. No one wants to watch a news/analysis show that deals with current events months or years after those events happen. But that's a nice straw man. Is that a straw man? I'm pretty sure that counts. It's like saying "Well, there isn't a single MLB team that would sign David Beckham to a contract, so he's not a good athlete."

Of course, if you're watching with friends, the same two comments will always be made.

"Why are they all laughing when nobody made a joke?"

"Why are there so many people?"

Those are the exact same two questions I always ask myself when I read through one of Simmons's chat sessions. Or when I'm changing channels and I stumble onto an old episode of "Friends."

As it turns out, the questions are related: They're laughing because there are too many people and it's the only reasonable way for everyone to communicate at once. Remember when Floyd Mayweather Jr. was showing us his car collection on "24/7," and he pointed out his Maybach, and then he pointed to another car ... and it was another Maybach? That's what happened to these pregame shows. Every network exec thinks like Floyd: They have too much money, there's too much money at stake and they desperately want to impress us, only they're not exactly sure how to do it. So instead of sticking with one Maybach, they buy two to be safe.

That's one of the stretchiest stretches for a pop culture reference I've ever read. Isn't there a Karate Kid moment that better fits the situation? What about "The Hills?" No? Maybe Mayweather wanted two different colors of Maybach. I doubt he was trying to impress the public. Maybe his opponents, or women... but not us. I hope not. Because I am unimpressed. I'm not even sure what a damn Maybach looks like.

That leads to ...

Bill Cowher is coming to CBS!

Tiki Barber is coming to NBC!

Emmitt Smith is coming to ESPN!

Barry Switzer is coming to Fox!

Cowher is very good on camera, despite constantly looking like he just got hit in the face, so his hiring is ok with me. Barber seems like a total snake-in-the-grass asshole, and he really likes throwing ex-teammates under the bus, but he's also good on camera. Smith has little to no grasp on the English language, but he provides some comic relief. And Switzer is definitely good on camera as well. So what's the problem here? You'll see what Bill's getting at in a minute. Hint: everything was better back in the late 80s/early 90s, because he was young then.

When you add a fifth person to a four-man studio show, and you're not getting rid of any of the other four people, by my calculations, that's too many people.

When you're a national sportswriter who constantly writes about Boston teams, and you don't provide any balance by occasionally writing about some other team, by my calculations, that's fucking annoying.

Think of it as the power of four. Unless you're putting together a poker night or a group to play pickup hoops, in nearly every other conceivable scenario, you're better off with four people than five or more. Dinner always works better. Vegas works better. Cabs work better. Sporting events work better. Road trips work better. Rock bands work better. The most successful sitcom ever ("Seinfeld") centered around four friends, and the most popular female comedy series ("Sex and the City") did the same.

None of those things have anything in common with a pregame show. And I would disagree about road trips, sitcoms, and sporting events anyways. The more people the merrier.

Local newscasts and morning shows work better. If you keep the number at four, you'll always have enough people to make it interesting and everybody has a chance to shine.

Anecdotal. Bullshit. I see no shininess problems with a five person cast. The only issue is when they all talk over each other. But Bill hasn't really brought that up. According to earlier in this same article, he just seems to hate laughter. I bet he hates babies and America, too.

Let's take a trip down Memory Lane. When I was growing up, Brent Musberger, Phyllis George/Jayne Kennedy, Irv Cross and Jimmy The Greek made up CBS's groundbreaking "NFL Today," the first "modern" pregame show that worked because Brent was so good and CBS was smart enough to keep it to four people.

Therrrrrrrrrrrrre we go. This is the real issue; things aren't like they were during Bill's glory days anymore, so they're bad.

The non-Brent talent was sorely lacking. Phyllis and Jayne were cute enough, but they didn't know much about football and admitted as much. Irv smiled a lot and never said anything even interesting -- in fact, he's the first broadcaster I ever made fun of on a regular basis. And Jimmy had the TV persona of a drunken uncle who crashed your Thanksgiving family dinner, then made long-distance bets on your phone, complained about an itchy colon and yelled at you for accidentally changing the TV. Needless to say, I loved him. But not everybody did.

Needless to say, Jimmy the Greek turned out to be an ignorant weirdo. So yeah, I guess I'm not surprised Bill loved him. Was he from the Boston area? That would help further explain things.

Skipping through a brief history of the pregame show on each network.

Now each of the four shows is overproduced, overstaffed and overlaughed, only whenever an appealing "name" comes on the market (Bill Parcells, Jerome Bettis, Barber, whomever), the networks pursue him for the same nonsensical reason Mayweather bought two Maybachs. Maybe I don't need it, but what the hell, I'm rich! And that's the part I don't get. From 1975 to 2000, we just established that only two pregame shows stood out -- "NFL Today" in the late '70s (four people, likable host) and "NFL Sunday" in the mid-'90s (four people, likable host).

Bill's ability to turn opinion into fact is astonishing. It must be part of the key to his success. Let me use some parallel reasoning: the only two movies I like are "Back to the Future III" and "Mr. Baseball." So based on that, we've just established that there have only been two good movies ever made. The end. Unless you also want to count "Beavis and Butthead Do America," which is fine as long as we keep it in a separate category because it's animated.

So why would all four Sunday shows in 2007 feature five-man casts?

Probably because, as Bill admitted earlier in this very column, ratings are high. (There's probably also some focus group research in there somewhere as well.) Hmmmmmm. Shit. So if networks are using five man casts... and ratings are high, which means the networks are making lots of money... why would they keep using five man casts? Christ, this is hurting my brain. Anyone have any ideas?

Why would they willingly create the following six problems?

I hope one of the problems on the list isn't "Causing the network to make too much money."

Problem No. 1: A historic amount of overlaughing, fake-laughing and abstract laughing (when someone laughs at something that doesn't possess a single shred of humor, you either assume they're stoned or crazy).

Well, they could also be under the age of 17 and watching a Dane Cook special. Or they could be a big Bill Simmons fan, reading a Bill Simmons article. ZING!

Problem No. 2: Scripted "arguments" in which one guy makes his seemingly unrehearsed comment, then awkwardly stops and turns to the person who's supposed to make the next seemingly unrehearsed comment as the cameramen struggle to keep up. Even porn movies have smoother transitions.

As far as I can tell (this may not be true, but it's certainly my impression), Bill's employer wrote the fucking book on scripted arguments between analysts. Watch ten minutes of Sportscenter. You're going to stumble right into one, usually between two equally stupid opponents like Skip Bayless/Stephen A. Smith or John Kruk/Steve Phillips. So clearly, people eat this kind of stuff up. Don't blame the pregame shows for following the formula. (Anyone who can clarify whether or not ESPN popularized this practice, feel free to let me know.)

Problem No. 3: Relentless attempts by everyone to make over-the-top comments and predictions, then shamelessly flip those same predictions at halftime in the opposite direction. You might remember Shannon Sharpe pulling this off to perfection before and during last Sunday's Chargers-Titans game.

While I can't say this kind of stuff is at all excusable, let's run the hypocrite test take a look at what Bill has had to say about the Giants' chances against Tampa Bay and Dallas respectively during the past two weeks:

1/4/08, before the wild card round:

When I write the Playoff Manifesto 5.0, you can bet anything that Eli and Coughlin will be featured in a section that includes the words "don't" or "beware." Seriously, you're thinking of backing Coughlin, Eli and (probably) his second-string center in a road playoff game? Are you nuts?

The Pick: Buccaneers 27, Giants 20

1/11/08, in this column (published before the divisional round):

You wanted me to believe in Mr. "8-1 On The Road," Giants fans? Fine! I believe in Eli Manning! I was wrong! Now I'm on the bandwagon and you can't kick me off! Come on, Eli! TAKE US TO THE PROMISED LAND, ELI!!!!!!!!

The Pick: Giants 33, Cowboys 30.

Let's see: over-the-top comments and predictions? Check. Hell, those are the only kinds of comments and predictions he knows. Shameless flip-flopping? Well, it didn't happen at halftime, but Bill doesn't publish articles midway through games, so this is the next best thing. Backing Coughlin and Manning in a road playoff game? What are you, fuckin' nuts? (Fast forward to the 3:00 mark) Oh, yeah. I guess not.

Problem No. 4: In a misguided effort to give everyone air time during the halftime shows, both CBS and Fox have their nonhosts doing highlights. In other words, there's a trained professional on hand with command of the English language and a natural ability to narrate what's happening, and we have to listen to people such as Sharpe, Bradshaw and Marino stumbling through highlights like they're doing a Foster Brooks routine? And this makes sense ... how?

If you really get that much more out of a highlight when one of those "trained professionals" does the narration, you are too stupid to have a job as a sports columnist. Maybe the average everyday fan has a gripe here. But Bill has already established several times that he doesn't give a flying poo about the average everyday fan. Sharpe, Marino and Bradshaw (especially) are idiots. You have to listen to them do a whole 15 seconds worth of highlights every halftime. Deal with it. I'll still take any of them over Stuart Scott or Linda Cohn.

Problem No. 5: A never-ending effort to convince us that, yes, this show is gonna have some personality and we're gonna have some fun! YEE-HAH!

How dare they! How dare a television show attempt to excite its viewers! What do they think this is, show business? Get out there and be as unflashy and boring as possible, studio personalities. We didn't come here to be entertained by you. Actually, let's just cut out the problem entirely. Is there any way we can get robots to do their jobs? I find the humans' facial expressions extremely distracting. Stop grinning at me, Howie Long. You look like a troll.

(My favorite gimmick here: CBS's "live" commercial during games that shows the five studio guys standing uncomfortably next to one another, laughing for no real reason and flipping a football around the semi-circle as Jim Nantz does the "Coming up at halftime ..." voiceover. Invariably, someone drops the ball and everyone else laughs hysterically. Apparently, this sequence is supposed to get me psyched to hear some football talk or something.)

Yeah, you know what would be better? A shot of the field from a pulled back angle, with the players just kind of milling around because it's a TV timeout. Or a shot of the studio with all the guys sitting behind their giant desk. That would get me much more excited. I'm not saying the "dropped ball routine" is comedic gold in terms of execution, but I don't see a problem with its intention.

Problem No. 6: The alpha dog analyst never getting enough time to make his points. For instance, Cris Collinsworth does the most homework, watches the most tape and has the most insightful/provocative comments of anyone, with the possible exception of Parcells. And he's fighting for air time with Tiki Barber and Jerome Bettis on NBC? Really? That's what America wants?

Collinsworth is smart, but also smarmy and unentertaining. If I were allowed to speak for America, I would say that this is exactly what America wants. In fact, it would be even better if Collinsworth had to literally physically fight Bettis and Barber for access to a microphone in order to be heard on the air. That's what America really wants, although America is willing to admit it's probably asking too much.

Knowing these problems -- and let's face it, they're problems -- why wouldn't at least one network return to a four-person show? The simple answer: they don't like firing people or eating contracts, but they loooooooove hiring people. Nothing makes a network exec happier than announcing, "We're bringing in so-and-so!" And the sheer power of numbers makes shows feel like a bigger event than they actually are, so instead of choosing between Emmitt and Keyshawn, or Marino and Boomer, or Tiki and Bettis, they just keep both under the "bigger is better!" premise. Even if it inadvertently clogs up their shows and flies against the face of everything that has ever worked well on a Sunday pregame show.

The number of people in the greater New England area who now assume that this is fact, even though it's just one douchebag's opinion, is undoubtedly tragically high. They're like lemmings. This obnoxious man is their leader, and they will do what he says. If I had more time on my hands and didn't hate Boston sports so much right now, I'd check around some blogs for the next couple of days and see how many Massholes suddenly start feeling this exact same way about this exact same topic. I guarantee it'll happen. It's creepy.

Anyway, that's how we arrived at CBS's watershed six-guys-at-the-same-table pregame show last week. Six people! That's a lot of people. That's the cast of "Friends."

I wrote my earlier joke about "Friends" being unfunny before I read this part of the article, I promise. What a happy coincidence that Bill actually seems to like the show. But I wonder which Friend he likes the best? I'm guessing: all of them! ("Friends" guitar riff plays)

That's the number of people you're allowed to play in a hockey game. That's enough people to rent an off-campus house in college. That's the "Brady Bunch." That's nearly an entire table at a wedding.

Amazingly put. Top notch analysis. It's also how many outs there are in a complete inning of baseball. It's how many days per week the mail gets delivered. It's a number of beers or sodas commonly held together with flexible plastic rings. Are any of these examples helping you better understand how many "six" is? No? (Larry B holds up his entire outstretched right hand, and left hand in a partial fist with just the index finger extended) It's this many!

If you can explain to me how six people could attempt to discuss a football game when only one person can talk at a time, I'd love to hear it.

Well, first one guy talks, then another, then another, until all six of them have talked. Then they repeat that process. Viola! Magic. Furthermore, the difference between four and six is basically negligible as long as they don't talk over each other too much. Which shouldn't happen if, you know, their producer has them well prepared to do their extremely easy job. Everyone gets less time to talk, but more viewpoints are presented. And the general format of a roundtable discussion about the sport of football should be pretty much unchanged, unless one of the guys wandered over from a different set or something. It's not very complex.

Did CBS stop and think, "Wow, maybe this was a bad idea?" Of course not. For about four minutes, they aired a round-table "conversation" that made all of Spencer's and Heidi's scenes in Season 3 of "The Hills" look unscripted and off-the-cuff by comparison.

I also made my obligatory joke about Simmons liking "The Hills" before I read that. God, I hate my brain and how much of it is devoted to knowing how Bill Simmons thinks.

The amazing part was the sheer volume of people sitting at the same table.

If you grew up with three or more siblings and both parents, and sometimes all ate meals at the same table, you are part of a weirdo-freak family. Congratulations.

How did they even fit six people on the same screen?

By having them sit kind of close together, and zooming out the camera. And using voodoo to shrink everyone.

Did they discuss having Casserly sit on Shannon's lap? Did they have to buy smaller chairs? Now I'm wondering what the limit will be. I never thought we'd see six on camera at the same time. Will we reach seven?

If market research and ratings say so, yes. Yes we will. I can't wait to read Bill's ensuing column.

Is that even possible?

Yes. If Woody Paige can help choose who gets into the Baseball Hall of Fame and who doesn't, I believe that anything is possible.

What if we did an eight-man show with two rows of tables? Where are we headed?

Hopefully for a "Hollywood Squares" type of grid setup. I'd watch that in a heartbeat.

I'd believe anything at this point.

OK. Next year, all four major networks that show the NFL will make massive cutbacks and limit their studio on camera staff to one man: Tim McCarver. He's going to do pregame and halftime shows for all of them. He'll even be doing play-by-play and color during games for FOX on certain weekends.

One last note, and this is the funniest part: Fox dominated the ratings from 1994 to 2005 with James Brown as its host, winning 132 of 134 straight shows at one point. Before the 2006 season, JB switched to CBS ... and CBS edged Fox for the first time ever. This season, CBS whupped Fox even more handily. Could you credit the change in power to JB? Actually, you probably could -- he's the best studio host alive and has been for years.

Although Brown may resonate well with viewers, FireJay reader Ben sent me a hopefully non-sarcastic email with a better idea. CBS does the majority of Patriots games. You think that maybe their even-more-immense-than-a-few-years-ago popularity (not to mention non-fans just wanting to follow their search for a perfect record) might have something to do with those numbers? It's definitely possible. Ben also makes the excellent point that almost all of Bill's examples in this article deal with the CBS pregame show, probably for the same reason as the ratings shift. Bill watches Patriots games and that's probably about it, so CBS is the only network whose coverage he's fully familiar with. But he's more than comfortable lumping in the other networks with them for the purposes of this article, because if he didn't, it wouldn't make much sense. I am/Ben is not saying he's never seen NBC or ESPN or FOX's show... I am/Ben is just saying, there aren't a lot of examples of their alleged misdeeds in here. So he can't have seen too much of them

Like in the '70s with Musberger and CBS, on-the-fence viewers are gravitating toward a pregame show because of a host and not because of the four ex-players and ex-coaches sitting next to him. Really, it's not rocket science. The host matters the most. Chemistry matters second. That's it. And you can't have chemistry when you have too many people trying to talk at once.

1) These are not facts, they are opinions. So no. That is not "it."
2) This is the first time too many people trying to talk at once has been brought up. If it happens, it's a problem. Do we know from this paragraph that it definitely happens? Nope. But we do know that the host matters the most, and that rhyming your points is always a better way to get them across. That's why Sesame Street is so popular with the age 3-10 demographic.

(And yes, if this was a Sunday pregame show, everyone else would wait a beat to make sure I was finished, then they'd start laughing hysterically for no discernable reas-

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, I didn't have to pause before I laughed at that! Not just because this isn't actually a Sunday pregame show, but also because this whole column has been just too dang funny. HO HO HO HO. It feels like I just read a bunch of Ziggy cartoons while a Robin Williams movie played in the background!

There's more to this column, but I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll get to it tomorrow if I really feel like working myself into a frenzy again.

Presenting: Scoop Jackson Finishes Embarrassing Himself

Let's pick up where we left off on Wednesday. Scoop was trying to come to the right conclusion (Randy Moss won't win the NFL MVP this year) by citing all the wrong reasons (such as: Barry Bonds has shown us that jerks can't win MVPs).

Moss won't win the MVP award because as well as he's played -- and in some minds (including this one) he outplayed Brady this year -- MVPs are like NCAA teams trying to win the BCS: If you begin the season too far off the elite list or not ranked in the top 25, it's impossible (even if you go undefeated, like Hawaii this year or Boise State last year) to play for the national championship. In Moss' case, while there is no preseason "ranking" on this topic, he began the season too far off of everyone's list to be the MVP in the end.

Interesting. The "you can't win if no one expects anything from you when the season starts" theory. Yet earlier in this same article, Scoop wrote that:

His teammate, Tom Brady, will win that award and at least one other player, probably Brett Favre, will get more votes of recognition than Moss.

Is that the same Brett Favre who had a 1:1 TD/INT ratio in 2006? And a QB rating in the low 70s? Yeah, so given that Favre will probably get significant MVP consideration, we're going to go ahead and ditch that idea.

Moss won't win the MVP award because he's not a quarterback. Or a running back. The last non-QB/RB to win the AP MVP award was Lawrence Taylor in 1986. And no wide receiver has ever won it -- not even Jerry Rice in 1987, when he won the Pro Football Writers' award.

Remember this; it's actually the real reason why Moss won't win. Good for Scoop for stumbling into it. Bad for Scoop for failing to realizing that this is the case is because WR performance is so incredibly dependent on QB and OL performance. Was Moss ineffective in Oakland simply because he didn't care? Really? He looked pretty deflated at times, but he obviously still had his physical tools. You think he was being that lethargic, every down, every game? Or could it maybe be the case that with shitty QBs behind a shitty OL throwing to him during 2005 and 2006, he was simply unable to rack up any decent numbers? It was probably a combination of apathy and supporting cast, but the second is far more significant than the first. I'm not saying WRs are 110% dependant on their QBs/OLs, and can't do anything to affect the outcome of a game on their own. But QBs/OLs help WRs look good a whole lot more often than the other way around.

Small sample size alert, but I'm going to make my point anyways. On Moss's 60 yard-plus TD against the Giants in the 4th quarter last Saturday, he simply ran a fly route. The corner on his side of the field let him go after 10 yards, presumably expecting safety help. That help came extremely late (almost as if the coverage was blown), and Moss caught the ball ran untouched for the TD. I know he's fast, but lots of guys are fast. At least 40 or 50 other wideouts in the league could have scored that TD. The reason that play and many other Brady to Moss plays this season worked like it/they did was because Brady had his usual 15 seconds in the pocket to allow things to develop, and he throws a good deep ball. The end.

Even though breaking Rice's season record for TD catches is just as impressive and significant as Brady breaking Manning's mark for TD passes, Moss won't get the MVP because he won't get the same recognition. In any other season, what he accomplished would have been more recognized and honored, but with Brady having his best statistical season, we didn't necessarily realize Moss' domination. That's not wrong, that's just human nature.

This doesn't carry much water. And by doesn't carry much water, I mean is complete nonsense. Pundits have been tripping over themselves to ass pat both players pretty equally this year. Brady might have an edge, but if he does it's pretty slight. I don't think Moss's hype would suffer much had he only finished with 20 TDs, nor would he eclipse Brady if Brady had only thrown 45 TDs. People don't care all that much about football records. Shouldn't all time passing TDs represent the rough equivalent of baseball's all time home run record? Compare the buildup and reaction Favre and Bonds each got during the past year. It's not much of a contest. Therefore- football records aren't that big of a deal.

Moss won't win the MVP award because he's been too perfect. For most players this would be a gift not a curse, but for him it's too distant from the picture that has been painted of him since he was drafted in 1998. The sullenness, the sulking, the walking off of the field with time left on the clock, playing only on certain downs, the Raiders experience -- all of this represents how the public sees Moss, defines who he is in our minds. But this year he's almost been angelic. And instead of giving him sole credit for changing and maturing, we will say it was the Patriots organization that changed him. Even though he had more of an effect on them than they did on him.

Moss won't win the MVP award because we don't want to honor that truth. The truth that the main reason the Patriots were able to go undefeated is because of the attitude change the team inherited from him. We see Spygate as the reason for the anger or "chippiness," as Tom Jackson calls it. But it was Moss who helped the Patriots get hard.

That's a load of anecdotal bullshit so massive, I surprised my computer didn't "poop out" trying to put it on the screen! (See, I said I was going to use more bad jokes and exclamation points this year.) Seriously though, wow. Where did this come from? How can a guy who gets paid to write about his opinions gets away with something like this?

See if you can follow Scoop's logic here. Moss has been a total dick and bad teammate several times during his career. It's fair to say he has a reputation for assholism. He also put up relatively poor numbers on the field during the two years before he came to New England. Bill Belichick also has an assholish rep, but he's got three Super Bowl rings. He clearly knows how to be angry and remain effective as a coach. Moss goes to New England and stops being a dick. He also starts putting up great numbers. Belichick continues to be a dick. The team continues to enjoy success. Clearly, this is all due to... Moss? I got myself lost somewhere in there, but that's Scoop's fault. How exactly the fuck we're supposed to buy into what he just wrote is anyone's guess.

It reminds me of a half-assed English paper, the likes of which I would have written in high school. I would just state conclusions left and right without justifying them and hope the teacher didn't bother to think while reading the essay. Replace "I would" with "Scoop is", "teacher" with "reader", change the verb tenses, and that's pretty much what seems to have happened here.

Moss won't win the MVP award because of his braids,

Pretty unlikely.

because he publicly admitted that he smokes weed,

That was like four years ago. I don't think the media cares that much any more. And again, when it comes to drugged up athletes and MVPs, see Bonds comma Barry.

because he's unapologetic about his West Virginia roots and doesn't mask who he really is,

The key to Peyton Manning's MVP awards: being very apologetic about his Louisiana roots, and constantly masking who he really is. Doesn't the guy just seem like a great big fake? I'll bet he doesn't even like most of those products he endorses. Same for Brett Favre and Steve McNair with Mississippi. And Shaun Alexander with Kentucky.

and because he's never been ashamed of how the world sees him.

Lawrence Taylor was clearly very ashamed of how the world saw him. That's how he was able to drag an award home.

Moss won't win the MVP award because of that beard. (Anyone who can make Ricky Williams' old facial hair look groomed doesn't stand a chance.)

I know I'm taking this too seriously. That's what we do here at FireJay. But Kurt Warner won an MVP with a trashy-ass beard and a wife that looks like an alien.

I'm just saying is all.

Moss won't win the MVP award because all of those unbelievable catches he made this season (remember the one-handed grab against the Colts or the one-handed, double-covered, over-the-shoulder catch in the corner of the end zone against the Dolphins in Week 7?) tend to have people thinking that Brady's accuracy is what is making Moss look good, when actually Moss has made bad passes by Brady look like genius decisions.

More anecdotal bullshit. Also, for every bad Brady pass Moss has turned into a catch, there are probably like 15 good, accurate passes that were served up on a platter for Moss. When Brady has all damn day to throw in the pocket (easily the most frustrating part of watching Patriots games when you hate them), most passes are going to end up right on target. Thanks, offensive line!

Which brings us back to the beginning. The reason Randy Moss will not win the MVP award is because of this: He's Randy Moss. And a lot of people simply can't get past that.

I am past it. I was never hindered by it in the first place. I think most MVP voters can probably honestly say the same. Here's the deal: WRs just aren't that valuable in an offense relative to QBs, RBs, and OLs (not that the latter is in the voting discussion). It's not that WRs don't matter, or that they're all interchangeable with each other, but they simply don't matter to the same extent everyone else on the offense does. That's why Moss looked so bad in Oakland; he didn't have anyone helping him out, and simply couldn't amass good numbers or make a significant difference on the field all by himself. That's also the reason Brady was effective for years while throwing to unheralded WRs; a good QB can put up good numbers and make a significant difference on the field all by himself. Scoop himself touched on this earlier in the article so I give him credit for that. It's just sad he couldn't take the idea all the way to completion, and instead wrote the rest of the crap in this article.

In summary-

Actual reasons Moss will not win:
WRs almost never do, because they almost never realistically deserve to

Not actual reasons Moss will not win:
Voters don't notice players who had low expectations placed upon them coming into the season
Moss is a jerk and jerks never win MVPs
No one noticed his WR TD record because of Brady's QB TD record
Moss's attitude is totally the reason the Patriots played well this year
He has braids
He is from West Virginia
He once admitted he smokes weed
He's not ashamed of the way the world sees him
He is Randy Moss, and people just can't deal with that

Give Scoop credit for this: he didn't play the race card.

That's how far my standards have fallen for ESPN's writers. I now applaud them simply for not saying things that are horribly and flagrantly wrong.

No Crappy Sportswriting Here

But if you want some crappy sportswriting in the near future, here's what to root for in the wide world of football this weekend. After each game listed, I'll write the hilarious angle or angles terrible journalists will take should the indicated outcome happen.

Saturday's NCAA Games:

Hawaii over Washington ("They're for real, just like Boise St. last year! Put them in the national title game, they're undefeated!" or "What a bunch of frauds! They haven't beaten anyone! They don't even belong in a bowl! BOOOOOOO!")

Missouri over Oklahoma ("What a great story! These guys are the best! Let me tell you all about them! Who cares if I couldn't name a single guy on the roster a month ago!")

Tennessee over LSU ("More proof that the SEC is the toughest conference in the country!")

LSU over Tennessee ("More proof that the SEC is the toughest conference in the country!")

Boston College over Virginia Tech ("That Matt Ryan is the second sexiest man alive! Have you ever seen this guy! He's almost hotter than Tim Tebow!")

USC over UCLA ("These guys are unstoppable! They would crush both Missouri and West Virginia right now! Put them in the national championship game! It's not like they lost to Stanford at home or anything!")

Army/Navy over Navy/Army ("This is the greatest rivalry in sports! Except when Ohio State plays Michigan and I write the exact same thing about that rivalry! Or Florida State/Florida! Or Texas/Oklahoma! Or Auburn/Alabama! Or Yankees/Red Sox!")

Moving on to Sunday/Monday's NFL Menu:

Tennessee over Houston ("I don't care that Vince Young was 9 for 24 with 120 yards and 4 interceptions! All this guy does is win! What! Tennessee has a good defense! Who cares, they've got Vince Young!")

New England over Baltimore AND New York Jets over Miami ("Let me just be the 1,000th different journalist to point out how crazy it would be if the Patriots went undefeated while at the same time the Dolphins went winless! How strange would that be! Very!")

New York Giants over Chicago ("Eli Manning is making 'the jump' right before our very eyes! He's completely matured and never makes mistakes anymore! He's ready to win some Super Bowls!")

Chicago over New York Giants ("Eli Manning is officially the worst quarterback in the league! It's time for the Giants to cut their losses and trade him to the CFL! His career is over!")

Pittsburgh over Cincinnati ("Maybe Chad Johnson should spend less time trying to do crazy celebrations and more time winning! He's an insult to the game! Even though I used to talk about how funny he was! I guess the court of public opinion just turns around like that sometimes! What are we talking about again!")

New Orleans over Tampa Bay ("The city of New Orleans is whole again! All the problems are fixed! Except for the fact that it's the murder capital of the country! But who cares! Their football team is winning, that means everything is OK! It's like the hurricane never happened!")

Fine, I'll admit I'm about a year late with that last one. I guess I'm out of material. Anyhow, hopefully about half of these happen, giving me my pick of the litter on Sunday night. Enjoy your weekend.