Sunday, February 05, 2006

The Super Bowl

I've spent most of the last twelve hours analyzing today's game. If by "analyzing," we mean "watching Anchorman" (twice), sleeping, and talking to Tom for three hours about people we don't like and why we don't like them. All of this has given me a sense of peace about Super Bowl XL.


And that sense of peace has led me not to revise my belief one bit -- Pittsburgh should not be favored, and I do not think they are going to win. I realize that I am in the minority here, that there are approximately seven people outside of Washington state (By the way, how embarrassing is it that Washington has to qualify itself as "Washington state" lest people assume you are talking about, well, Washington?) and Oregon -- or as Steven Colbert calls it, "California's Canada" -- picking Seattle.


The Jerome Bettis story is fascinating. It is compelling. I'm sure that Bettis is the saint that the media has made him out to be in the last two weeks. (You know who else is a saint? Dorothy Mantooth. That's who.) He probably rescues kittens and volunteers at senior centers and sews cozies for the blind during the offseason. And I am quite certain that his sainthood is pretty much irrelevent. Sure, Pittsburgh players say that they want to win it for Jerome. That's sweet and touching and it doesn't mean squat. It will have zero impact on the game -- Seattle's guys want to win too, and once the first hit is laid, I will assume that both teams are equally motivated, and that all of the pregame folderol was just that. If Joey Porter is somehow more motivated by his verbal pissing contest this week, Pittsburgh is in trouble. Teams that want to win the Super Bowl have plenty of motivation. Beyond that, has any guy who rushed for 368 yards and averaged 3.3 yards a carry ever been so hyped going into the ultimate game? I like Bettis. But enough already.


I like Seattle's balance. I like that they have the best offensive line. I like that they have the best running back and most experienced quarterback on the field. I like that they are not coming in as the Cinderella story -- I would estimate that 90% of the time, the "team of destiny" actually does not win once they run into the "better team." The very reason why the 2001 Patriots were such a compelling story is because they were the underdog that won. Usually the plucky underdog gets waxed. The fact that Pittsburgh is the favorite does not change the fact that by any reasonable measure they ought not to be, even if the AFC was by far the better conference this season.


I have had 27-21 in my head for a week now. That makes sense to me. Take the points, take Seattle, and don't look back. And if you have Tom's crack dip recipe and beer, it won't even matter if the game is not good and the commercials disappointing.

2 comments:

dcat said...

Simon --
Well, it's 7-3 at the half, it feels as if Seattle ought to be up by two touchdowns. this might be a bit like the Pats-Carolina Super Bowl where we see an explosion of scoring. in any case, it's nice to have someone else on my side!
dc

dcat said...

Simon --
I'm with you -- I'd take Randel-El, though I'd like to keep Branch as well. Big draft for the Pats, and if, just maybe, they can stay healthy next year I think they could be dominant.

dcat