A Day of Fame

Today is the anniversary of two similar events in two separate sports separated by more than two dozen years.

On Jan. 29, 1936, the first inductees into Baseball's Hall of Fame were announced. Those inductees were:

• Ty Cobb


• Babe Ruth


• Honus Wagner


• Christy Mathewson


• Walter Johnson

In nearly three–quarters of a century, almost 300 people, of whom more than 200 were players (although managers, umpires, executives and Negro Leaguers are enshrined), have been inducted. Next summer, one former player — Andre Dawson — will be inducted, along with an umpire and a manager.

Twenty–seven years later, to the day, the Pro Football Hall of Fame announced its first group of inductees. A total of 17 people were named on that day:

• Sammy Baugh


• Bert Bell


• Joseph Carr


• Dutch Clark


• Red Grange


• George Halas


• Mel Hein


• Pete Henry


• Cal Hubbard


• Don Hutson


• Curly Lambeau


• Tim Mara


• George Preston Marshall


• Blood McNally


• Bronko Nagurski


• Ernie Nevers


• Jim Thorpe

More than 250 people are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. This year's class has not yet been announced.

Perhaps it was a coincidence that both sports announced their charter classes on January 29. Or maybe the NFL manipulated things — but why?

Does anyone know?

Nancy Kerrigan's Tragedy

---

---

It's strange how things have played out for Nancy Kerrigan.

She may remember Februarys past with some fondness — she did win medals at the 1992 and 1994 Winter Olympics.

But January may be in for some unpleasant comments when she writes her memoirs. She is 40 now and she has been out of the spotlight for awhile, but in January 1994, she was hit in the knee in a plot to improve Tonya Harding's chances of winning the gold medal at the Winter Games. She recovered from her injury, but she didn't win the gold medal.

And now, her brother stands accused of assault and battery following an incident in which their 70–year–old father died.

I know it is tempting to swarm around Nancy Kerrigan and intrude on her grief, but I hope those in the media will be respectful at this time.

Dan Kerrigan will be laid to rest on Thursday. The Kerrigans have asked for privacy as they come to grips with the tragedy of losing a patriarch and the incarceration of a sibling.

Give her the space she needs at this difficult time.

Teams of the Decade

Now that the 2009 conference championships have been determined, the tedious, tiresome, two–week Super Bowl hypefest can begin.

But, as I was watching the Colts and Saints win, it occurred to me that I was watching the final conference champions of the first decade of the 21st century being crowned. There wasn't a lot of suspense as far as Indianapolis was concerned, but the Saints had to go into overtime to finish off the Vikings.

Well, now that we know the identities of the champions, we can discuss the teams of the decade in the NFC and AFC.

First, the AFC ...

• In the last 10 years, one AFC team has played in more Super Bowls than any other — the New England Patriots. In February 2002, the Patriots beat the heavily favored St. Louis Rams, then they beat the Carolina Panthers in February 2004 and the Philadelphia Eagles in February 2005. They lost their fourth Super Bowl appearance of the decade to the New York Giants in February 2008.


• I suppose that makes the Pats the AFC's team of the decade, but, because of yesterday's championship games, there will be two other AFC teams that can claim to have made multiple Super Bowl appearances in this decade — the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Indianapolis Colts.
  
  The Steelers, of course, beat Arizona last year, and they beat Seattle in February 2006. The Colts beat Chicago in February 2007, and they will be trying for their second Super Bowl title of the decade when they face New Orleans next month.


• Two other AFC teams made one appearance each in the Super Bowl — Baltimore in January 2001 and Oakland in January 2003.

Now, the NFC ...

• In seven of the nine Super Bowls that have been played following regular seasons in the 21st century, the AFC team has been the winner. Only one NFC team, the New York Giants, has been to more than one Super Bowl. The Giants lost to the Baltimore Ravens back in January 2001, then they beat the previously undefeated Patriots in February 2008.


• The other NFC team to win a Super Bowl was the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who whipped Oakland in January 2003.


• Six other teams made one appearance in the Super Bowl in the first decade of the 21st century, and each team lost — St. Louis, Carolina, Philadelphia, Seattle, Chicago and Arizona.
  
  The Panthers, Seahawks and Cardinals were playing in their first–ever Super Bowls — as were the Ravens, when they won it all, and as will be the Saints when they face Indianapolis.


• The Saints will be the ninth NFC team to play in the Super Bowl since the start of the 21st century — and the fifth to be playing in their very first Super Bowl. Obviously, they will be hoping to join the Bucs as first–time winners.


• I suppose that, in the eyes of some NFL fans, the fact they appeared in more than one Super Bowl makes the Giants the NFC's team of the decade.
  
  But, in my opinion, the fact that so many different NFC teams earned Super Bowl berths in this decade means we must approach the choice of the NFC's team of the decade a little differently. No team really stands out — unlike the Dallas Cowboys in the 1990s or the San Francisco 49ers in the 1980s.
  
  I think the best way to decide which team was truly the NFC's team of the decade is by regular–season wins. Based on that, the Giants came in third with 88 regular–season wins.
  
  Second in regular–season wins was Green Bay, which recorded 95 wins in the decade. And, if the Packers had played in a Super Bowl during the last 10 years, they might have been realistic contenders for NFC's team of the decade. But they didn't.
  
  Consequently, I would have to say that the NFC's best team was the Philadelphia Eagles, who won 103 games in the 21st century's first decade.
  
  The Eagles lost the only Super Bowl in which they played, but they advanced to five NFC championship games in the decade. That's at least three more appearances than any other NFC team.
  
  And, in the absence of an NFC team with three, four or five Super Bowl appearances, it is the best evidence of the Eagles' dominance.

Who's Going to the Super Bowl?

I think most people are probably pulling for Brett Favre and Peyton Manning today.

And I guess I can live with that, but, personally, I'm pulling for their opponents.

Keep in mind, I didn't say that neither Favre nor Manning would advance to the Super Bowl. They may both win today.

One thing seems to be sure. Win or lose, both will wind up in the Hall of Fame eventually. What is unknown, at least at this stage, is whether either or both will be in Miami in two weeks.

• New York Jets (11–7) at Indianapolis Colts (15–2) — As I have pointed out before, the Jets won at Indianapolis on Dec. 27, giving the Colts their first loss of 2009 and preserving the uniqueness of the 1972 Miami Dolphins' perfect season. That was the first time the teams had met since 2006, when the Jets lost a close one at home. They haven't met in the playoffs since January 2003, when New York whipped the visiting Colts in the wild–card round, 41–0. That game, however, was played in the Meadowlands. This one will be played in Indianapolis. Clearly, the home crowd will be a factor in the game, and, even though I don't expect the fans to have to face bone–chilling weather outside the stadium, I expect lots of noise once they take their seats. But that is only part of the story. It seems to me that the greatest challenge the Colts will face is trying to stop the Jets' ground game. The Jets have one of the NFL's best rushing attacks, and I'm inclined to think the Colts will need to force the Jets into numerous third–and–long situations to shut them down. The key for the Jets? Contain Manning. He has some talent around him, but when he isn't clicking, the Colts can be stopped. I'm not sure which team will be better off today because Manning didn't play on the day the Jets handed the Colts their first loss of the season. Of the three teams that received a bye and then won their first playoff games, the Colts seemed the least polished on offense. Perhaps that was due to the Ravens' defense. Maybe it was indicative of some weakness that most of the Colts' foes did not exploit sufficiently. Indy won a lot of close games this year. My advice to the Jets would be to remain level–headed, no matter what the score may be. I'd really like to see the Jets go to the Super Bowl, but I have a feeling that the Colts will instead.


• Minnesota Vikings (13–4) at New Orleans Saints (14–3) — The last time Minnesota played in New Orleans was Monday, Oct. 6, 2008. The Vikings rallied for a 30–27 win. In fact, you have to go back to Oct. 7, 2001, to find the Saints' last win over the Vikings in New Orleans. But you may need to look no further than your TV this evening to see New Orleans' next home triumph over Minnesota. I'm sure the folks in the Big Easy are eager to see the Saints advance to the Super Bowl. That would be a first for them, and that would be their reward for winning today's game. But it's been more than 30 years since the Vikings were in a Super Bowl. They've come close a couple of times, but they haven't played in the NFL's showcase game since January 1977. Whoever wins today's game will be an unfamiliar Super Bowl entrant for most people, to be sure. As the road team in today's NFC championship game, I think a key to Minnesota's success may not necessarily be Favre's arm. He's had a remarkable season for a 40–year–old man, and I doubt that anyone would quibble with his reputation as one of the great quarterbacks of his era. But I think that the most effective weapon a visiting team can have in the playoffs, especially when the home crowd is likely to be as boisterous as the one in the Superdome this afternoon, is a strong running game. It may not always have been clear to observers this year because the offensive spotlight hasn't been on Adrian Peterson in every game, but he remains one of the most potent running backs in pro football. If the Vikings keep the ball in his hands — and save the passing game until it is needed — they can wear down the Saints' defense, which is better against the pass than the run, and they can take the crowd out of the contest. The Saints have a good running game, too, with Reggie Bush in the backfield, but their quick–strike potential can do more than put points on the board. It can whip the fans into a frenzy, and it can demoralize Minnesota's defense — which, it should be pointed out, was one of the league's best. The Vikings may be able to neutralize New Orleans' passing game if they can get to Drew Brees and sack him early, perhaps forcing him to play more tentatively. If that happens, the Saints will have a solid ground game to rely on, but I see the passing game as being what keeps the fans in the Superdome involved in the contest this afternoon. Anyway, those are the keys to this game, in my view — the Minnesota ground game and the New Orleans air attack. The outcome may be as close as it was when the teams faced each other during the 2008 season, but I'll pick the Saints to win this time.

Last week: 2–2.

Playoffs: 3–5.

And Then There Were Four

---

---

A few days ago, I wrote that I expected at least one of the pro football teams that got a bye in the first week of the playoffs to lose in the divisional round. In fact, one team did lose, but it wasn't the one I predicted.

Actually, I am inclined to believe that few, if any, observers expected what happened.

The first three playoff games of the weekend were won by teams that got a bye — which, by definition, means the home team. The winners on Saturday, New Orleans and Indianapolis, were undefeated until December. Neither is undefeated now, but Indianapolis, which won its first 14 games, seemed almost determined to rid itself of the expectations of perfection that many people believed worked against the New England Patriots a couple of years ago. New Orleans wasn't much better. Once both teams had clinched home field through the conference playoffs, they played their regulars sparingly and made it clear that their focus had shifted to the playoffs.

As a result, the Saints and the Colts entered the weekend saddled with losing streaks. Indy had lost two in a row and hadn't won at home since Dec. 13. New Orleans had lost three in a row and hadn't won at home since November.

I predicted that the Colts, who were facing a Baltimore Ravens team they barely beat in Week 11, would stumble. But, after the way Arizona held off a spirited Green Bay team on wild–card weekend, it wouldn't have surprised me if the Saints had taken it on the chin.

Frankly, I wouldn't have been shocked if both teams had fallen. But neither team did.

Then, yesterday, the Dallas Cowboys played the Minnesota Vikings. The Vikings struggled in December while the Cowboys established a reputation as perhaps the hottest team in the NFC, becoming the first team to knock off the Saints, then ending the regular season with a win for the first time in 10 years and then winning a playoff game for the first time since 1996.

Consequently, there were probably more than a few NFL fans who thought the Cowboys might upend the Vikings and Brett Favre. But the Vikings, like the Saints and the Colts the day before, rolled to an easy victory.

Of all four of the weekend's playoff games, Sunday's nightcap may have been the one most NFL fans figured was a foregone conclusion. It matched the visiting New York Jets, who have surprised many fans this season, and the San Diego Chargers, who came into the game having won 11 in a row.

Until the fourth quarter, it looked like the Chargers would hang on and win the game, but it was not to be. The Jets won that final quarter, 14–3, and won the game, 17–10, setting up a rematch of their Dec. 27 game with the Colts. On that day, the Jets handed the Colts their first loss of the season. The Colts had already secured home field and had nothing left to play for. The Jets didn't officially clinch a wild–card berth that day — but they may have done so mentally.

This time, the winner goes to the Super Bowl.

As I observed prior to the kickoff of wild–card weekend, seven of the last 10 Super Bowls have featured a team that did not get the opening–round bye. On four of those occasions, the team that didn't get the bye won it all.

Does that mean the Jets will continue their improbable playoff run with a win over the Colts on Sunday, perhaps followed by a victory in the Super Bowl?

I'll be addressing that here later this week!

Bye Bye?

Last week, I wrote that getting the first–round bye in the NFL playoffs can be as much a curse as a blessing.

I believe that. And I believe we will see some proof of that this weekend. The teams to keep your eyes on — the teams that got the byes this year — are New Orleans, Indianapolis, Minnesota and San Diego.

At least one of those teams will fall this weekend. Mark my words.

SATURDAY

---

---

• Arizona (11–6) at New Orleans (13–3) — The last time Arizona played in the Louisiana Superdome was on Dec. 16, 2007. Neither team advanced to the playoffs that year, but the Saints won their encounter, 31–24. That's the only time since Hurricane Katrina that the teams have faced each other. Truthfully, the teams haven't met very often in recent years so it is necessary to look for other factors that could influence the outcome: (1) Arizona is coming off a hard–fought overtime win over Green Bay last Sunday. Will the Cardinals be exhilarated or exhausted? (2) New Orleans hasn't won at home since beating New England on Nov. 30. (3) Saints quarterback Drew Brees has received a lot of attention this season, and he clearly has been crucial to the Saints' success, but, statistically, the Cardinals have the NFL's top offense, its second–best passing game and its fifth–best rushing attack. (4) On the other side of the ball, Arizona's overall defense, its pass defense and its run defense rank second only to Dallas among teams that are still active in the NFC. Nevertheless, Steve Wyche of NFL.com says the intangibles, like home field and a week to rest and regroup, are in the Saints' favor. And John DeShazier of the New Orleans Times–Picayune writes that, if the Saints truly want to be the best team in the NFL, there may be no better way to prove it than by beating the defending NFC champs. It wasn't so long ago that the very thought of either the Saints or the Cardinals even being in the playoffs was laughable, but it isn't so laughable now. One of them will play in their second NFC championship game in the last four years. Which will it be? That's a tough call for me, but, by the narrowest of margins, I'll pick the Saints.

---

---

• Baltimore (10–7) at Indianapolis (14–2) — For the second consecutive week, the Ravens will be playing a team that beat them during the regular season. The Colts barely got by the Ravens on November 22, 17–15, but that game was played in Baltimore. The last time the teams met in Indianapolis was Oct. 12, 2008, when the Colts hammered the Ravens, 31–3. Actually, the Colts have won seven in a row against the Ravens (including a playoff game the year they beat the Bears in the Super Bowl). The Ravens haven't beaten the Colts since Dec. 2, 2001, and some people don't think they will snap that losing streak, in part because Baltimore was much better at home than on the road this year. Nevertheless, the Ravens whipped New England on the road last weekend, and there are some folks, like Bucky Brooks of NFL.com, who think Baltimore's running game, led by Ray Rice and Willis McGahee, can make the difference. At the very least, he concedes it is the running game that not only has kept Baltimore's season going but is responsible for the continued presence in the postseason of the Jets and Cowboys as well. Statistically, the Ravens did have the best running game in the NFL. They were the only squad that averaged more than 200 rushing yards per game, and fans must wonder if Indy can keep up with them. Pat Kirwan, Brooks' colleague at NFL.com, openly wonders if the Colts can stop the Ravens' offensive line. I wonder that, too, but, ultimately, that isn't the issue, is it? The linemen may do their job, but the running backs are the ones who have to make the moves, break tackles and turn up the speed when called for. Baltimore's running attack really has emerged since the Indianapolis game. Last time, as Kirwan points out, the Ravens never scored a touchdown against the Colts with an offense that threw the ball more than ran it. The Ravens settled for five field goals and missed a sixth that would have won the game. The objective needs to be different this time. The Ravens have to get the ball into the end zone, and the ground game seems to be in a better position to produce that kind of result — along with the added benefit of keeping Indy's offense off the field. The Colts are 24th in the NFL in defending the run; they can be had. Another factor in this game is the bye. The Colts haven't won a game since Dec. 17, and they haven't beaten a playoff team since that game with the Ravens nearly two months ago. I believe phoning in their last two games and then taking last week off will work against them. Some people say Dallas or San Diego are the hottest teams in the playoffs right now, but Baltimore could be a plausible candidate for that title. The Ravens have emerged the winners of must–win games to get into and then advance in the playoffs. They have plenty of momentum and a running game that could wear down the Colts. I'll take the Ravens.

SUNDAY

---

---

• Dallas (12–5) at Minnesota (12–4) — This may be the game that NFL fans have anticipated the most this week. The teams last faced each other in Dallas on Oct. 21, 2007; the Cowboys won, 24–14. The last time they met in Minnesota was Sept. 12, 2004; the Vikings won that one, 35–17. The last time the road team won was on Nov. 23, 2000, when Minnesota won in Dallas, 27–15. The teams didn't meet in the playoffs for the first time until 1971, but it became almost an annual thing in the 1970s as they faced each other four times between 1971 and 1977. They have only played twice in the postseason since that time, with Dallas winning in 1996 and Minnesota winning in 1999. Well, that's all in the past. What does the immediate future hold? Let's go back to the recent past for just a moment. The Vikings signed Brett Favre last summer, thinking he could provide the leadership the team needed to get to the Super Bowl, and, in spite of a bit of a late–season slump, he's come through. When the season started and Favre was learning Minnesota's system, there was a tendency for the team to rely on halfback Adrian Peterson. As the season progressed, though, the Vikings evolved from primarily a running team to more of a passing team — in the last two games of the regular season, Favre threw for more than 300 yards in each game while Peterson did not crack 100 yards in rushing. So, while Favre ended the season behind Dallas' Tony Romo in the passing rankings, he's been following an upward trajectory, perhaps at Peterson's expense, but as long as Peterson is in the lineup, Dallas can't afford to focus exclusively on Favre and Minnesota's aerial attack. Not to be forgotten is the fact that the Vikings went 8–0 at home. If New Orleans beats Arizona, the winner of this game will have to travel to the Big Easy next week, but this week, as Sid Hartman observes in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, home field is truly an advantage for the Vikings. It should be interesting — and challenging for the Cowboys. In the end, though, I'll go with the home team.

---

---

• New York Jets (10–7) at San Diego (13–3) — Perhaps the only thing you need to know about this matchup is that it has been nearly three months since San Diego lost a football game. That was against Denver on Oct. 19. Here's something else that might be helpful. The last time the Jets played in San Diego was Sept. 22, 2008. The Jets had Brett Favre calling the signals, but that didn't deter the Chargers, who rolled to a 48–29 victory. That's the only win the Chargers have recorded in four meetings with the Jets in the last 15 years — and it came when the Jets had the only Hall of Fame quarterback they've had in their lineup since Joe Namath was on the roster. It's tempting to believe that, until last weekend, the Jets hadn't won a playoff game since Namath was calling the signals. But it only seems that way. The Jets won wild–card games following the 2004 and 2002 seasons, they won a divisional playoff in January 1999, and they won some playoff games in the 1980s, but they've only gone as far as the AFC championship game since their lone Super Bowl appearance more than 40 years ago. The Chargers haven't been much more successful. They lost the only Super Bowl they've ever played in 15 years ago, and they lost in their only AFC championship appearance since then (they only played in two others since the NFL and AFL merged in 1970). But these Chargers are the definition of hot. It is unfortunate for the Jets to have drawn them. If the Ravens had lost to the Patriots, as everyone expected, the Jets would be playing in Indianapolis this weekend and the Pats would have the unenviable task of playing the Chargers. If the Jets and Ravens win this weekend, that would set up the absolutely final game in Giants Stadium, with the AFC title on the line. But I don't think the Jets have the horses to pull it off. I think the Chargers will win.

Playoffs: 1–3.

McGwire Finally Acknowledges Steroid Use

---

---

It was dumb luck that I got to see the news coverage of the congressional testimony about steroids use in baseball that Mark McGwire gave on March 17, 2005.

I had been called for jury duty that day, and things got wrapped up early that afternoon, so I went home and switched on my TV. I don't think McGwire's testimony was live at the time I saw it. As I recall, I saw taped highlights.

And what I remember is his insistence that he wasn't there to talk about the past. It never seemed to occur to him that it was his past that gave any credibility to recommendations he had for the future.

It was a non–denial denial.

I was very disappointed in McGwire that day. When he broke into the majors with the Oakland A's, I liked him. I didn't care much for the other "Bash Brother," Jose Canseco — but, as it turned out, Canseco told the truth in his book when he not only admitted using steroids but fingered McGwire as someone who had injected performance–enhancing drugs with him.

Canseco told the truth. McGwire did not.

Technically, I suppose, you can't say McGwire lied. But implied in his protest that he did not want to talk about the past was the suggestion that he was guiltless. Actually, it wasn't even implied at one point, when he said, "[I]t remains a fact in this country that a man, any man, should be regarded as innocent unless proven guilty."

And during those hearings, McGwire sought to cast doubt on Canseco's credibility, saying, "[C]onsider the source of the statements."

I liked McGwire. His home run duel with Sammy Sosa in 1998 revived baseball with the public after the 1994–95 strike wiped out the 1994 World Series.

But it seems likely now that it was a hoax. McGwire was juiced. Sosa insists he never used steroids, but how can baseball fans believe him? Evidence is mounting that most of baseball's top performers in the last 20 years or so used steroids.

Even if no one proves his guilt, there will always be a stain on his name. Both he and McGwire exceeded the record for a single season. And McGwire apparently used steroids that season, but he has the audacity now to say he could have hit 70 home runs in 1998 with or without steroids. And Mike Bauman is right to call him on it in his article for MLB.com.

Essentially, Bauman said, McGwire is his own worst P.R. enemy: "What is apparently needed here is a basic, introductory course: Steroid Apologies 101," Bauman wrote. "You admit you took the steroids. You express your regrets for having done so. You appear to be genuinely penitent. You are a sincere seeker of redemption. You are a steroids sinner who has returned to the flock.

"What you do not do next, is what Mark McGwire did on Monday in an interview with Bob Costas on the MLB Network. He was fine through the admission and the apology. And then he said that if he had never used steroids he still would have hit all those home runs, because he was just that good. Talk about creating a nice moment and then crushing it."

Yep. Arrogance is a bad quality to project when you're trying to defend your use of performance–enhancing drugs. I must admit that I feel about the same way about McGwire as I do about Pete Rose. Even when admitting guilt, they insist on rationalizing their actions.

And that makes it difficult for those who always admired (and some envied) their talent to defend them.

This whole thing reminds me of the quiz show scandals of the 1950s. When Charles Van Doren — that scandal's version of McGwire — admitted in his congressional testimony that he had been "deeply involved in a deception," he was praised by most of the congressmen. But Rep. Steven Derounian, R–NY, refused to join the chorus praising him for admitting that he cheated.

"I am happy that you made the statement, but I cannot agree with most of my colleagues who commended you for telling the truth," Derounian said, "because I don't think an adult of your intelligence ought to be commended for telling the truth."

Well, McGwire, who likes to brag about his intelligence, cheated to get that home run record. Rose spent years denying what he finally admitted was true — that he gambled on baseball and he wagered on the team he managed.

As far as I'm concerned, they should both be kept out of the Hall of Fame.

Wild-Card Weekend Is Upon Us

As I have mentioned here before, I admire the writing of Sports Illustrated's Peter King. He writes very insightful articles about pro football, and he asked an intriguing question in his preview of this weekend's wild–card games:

"When's the last time you recall all four wild–card games being so competitive you wouldn't be surprised to see the road team win any one?" He then proceeds to pick the road teams in two of this weekend's games. I'm with King on that one. In fact, as you will soon see, I have picked three of the four road teams to win this weekend.

Personally, I have often felt that home field was overrated, and King kind of affirms that in his piece. "Two roadies won last year," he writes, "and three won in 2005. This year, I don't care what Vegas says. It's even–steven across the board entering the weekend."

The New York Giants won the Super Bowl two years ago after beating Tampa Bay, Dallas and Green Bay on the road in the NFC playoffs. In 2005, the Pittsburgh Steelers became the first team in two decades to win three road games en route to the Super Bowl (which they also won).

In fact, I have wondered if the practice of giving a first–round bye to the big winners during the regular season hasn't been a detriment, not a benefit. Consider the recent teams that have advanced to the Super Bowl (whether they won or lost) in spite of having to play in the first round: Arizona had to play on wild–card weekend last year. As mentioned previously, the Giants were a wild card two years ago and won it all. So did the Indianapolis Colts, who were not a wild card but had to play one in January 2007. I mentioned the 2005 Steelers. Carolina played in the wild–card weekend following the 2003 season. The 2001 Ravens had to play in the first round. So did the 1999 Tennessee Titans.

Seven of the last 10 Super Bowls have featured a team that did not get a first–round bye. Four of those seven were won by the team that didn't get the bye week. When you consider that four teams get a first–round bye every season, and they get that bye because they are one of the top two winningest teams in the conference, it logically follows that they probably went into the playoffs among the favorites to at least play in the Super Bowl, if not win it all.

That means that, in the last 10 years alone, at least 16 teams that probably were considered one of the favorites to win a Super Bowl did not, and at least 28 teams that were favored to at least play in a Super Bowl did not.

Why do I believe having to play in a wild–card game is not the kiss of death that many seem to think it is? Because I believe a bye week at this stage of the season is useful only if a team is banged up and needs a little extra time to get over its bumps and bruises.

If the team is in fairly good health, my thinking has been that a bye takes a team out of its rhythm. It retards a team's momentum. And I believe New Orleans and Indianapolis, who rested their starters when there was nothing left to play for, may pay a price for doing the smart thing and protecting their top producers.

But that's a subject to be addressed as we go deeper into the playoffs.

TODAY

• New York Jets (9–7) at Cincinnati (10–6) — Of the three playoff games that are rematches of games played last week, this one seems to be the most likely to produce a duplicate result. By the time last Sunday's game between the Jets and the Bengals began, the results of all the other games were known, and the Bengals had nothing to play for. The Jets did, and it showed in the final score — a 37–0 triumph. The game provides an intriguing contrast. When the season began, the Bengals had the hot hand, winning seven of their first 10 games. But, at season's end, the Jets were the hot team, winning five of their last six. Since Thanksgiving, Cincinnati lost to three playoff teams and only managed wins over Detroit and Kansas City. The last time the teams played in Cincinnati was on Oct. 21, 2007. The Bengals prevailed, 38–31, but the Jets have won two in a row at home against the Bengals since then. Can they win at Cincinnati for the first time since September 1997? I think they will.


• Philadelphia (11–5) at Dallas (11–5) — As members of the same division, these two teams are familiar foes. They play each other twice a year, and they just played at Cowboys Stadium last Sunday. In that game, Dallas won, 24–0, giving the Cowboys two victories over the Eagles during the regular season. Now they must try to make it three victories, which is a difficult task. And the Cowboys need look no further than their own postseason experience for examples of just how hard it can be. Two years ago — the last time Dallas was in the playoffs — the Cowboys faced the New York Giants in the playoffs after beating them twice during the regular season. The Giants won, 21–17, and went on to the Super Bowl, where they upset the previously unbeaten New England Patriots. And, in 1998, the Cowboys beat the Arizona Cardinals (who were in their division at the time) twice during the regular season, then lost to the Cardinals in the playoffs, 20–7. Until this season, there was considerable talk about the Cowboys' "December jinx," although that talk seems to have been dispelled by Dallas' 3–2 record last month (including a victory over previously unbeaten New Orleans). Nevertheless, some folks in Dallas will remind you that the Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in more than 10 years. I predict the Eagles, who had won six in a row before tumbling against Dallas last Sunday, will bounce back and win the game.

SUNDAY

• Baltimore (9–7) at New England (10–6) — The way I see it, there are three things to keep in mind in this game. First: Location, location, location. The Patriots have been absolutely awful on the road, which is where they will have to play next week if they beat Baltimore. But, against the Ravens, New England is playing at home, where the Pats are 8–0. Baltimore, meanwhile, is 3–5 on the road, and the Ravens lost at New England earlier in the season, 27–21. So, on the basis of location, the Pats should be favored. Second: Statistics. The Patriots are third in the NFL in total offense (the Ravens are 13th) and pass offense (the Ravens are 18th). Baltimore does have the advantage in rushing offense, ranking fifth in the NFL while the Patriots are 12th. Baltimore has the edge in team defense (third in the NFL, compared to 11th for New England), passing defense (eighth in the NFL while New England is 12th) and rushing defense (fifth in the NFL; Patriots are 13th). New England's margin on offense is more pronounced than Baltimore's is on defense — although, if Baltimore has the lead late in the game and needs to run the ball to control the clock, the Ravens seem to be in a better position to do so than the Patriots. That doesn't seem likely to me, though, so I'll give the edge to New England. Third: Postseason experience. It can be argued that today's Ravens have more recent postseason experience than the Patriots. New England, after all, did not qualify for the playoffs last year while Baltimore, in spite of being the sixth seed, defeated Miami and Tennessee on the road and stayed within striking distance of Pittsburgh in the first half of the AFC title game. Will the weather be a factor? Well, it's expected to be cold (predicted high of 24°) and windy (the wind chill could be as low as -1°) but sunny. That's a little colder than it is expected to be in Baltimore tomorrow (28°, sunny, not as windy). The Ravens may notice the weather, but I doubt they will be affected by it. I think they are more likely to be affected by the atmosphere. History has shown that it is very tough for the visiting team to win at New England, especially in the playoffs, and I'll give the home team the edge in this one.


• Green Bay (11–5) at Arizona (10–6) — Pat Kirwan of NFL.com says the key to this game is the ability to get to the quarterback, and he may have a point. Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers did get sacked 50 times this season, and he was sacked more than twice as often in games the Packers lost. But bear in mind that Green Bay's defense appears to be better than Arizona's. The Packers have the best team defense in the NFC and the best run defense in the NFL. And, while the Green Bay pass defense is ranked second in the NFC, Arizona's is ranked 11th. Add to that the fact that Green Bay has beaten Arizona severely twice this year — once was in the third week of the preseason, so it didn't count in the standings, and the other was last weekend. This is the playoffs, and the Cardinals may have Anquan Boldin back from injury — although NFL.com suggests that it is unlikely he will play. Apparently, he's still hobbling around, but he's a factor whenever he is in the lineup. I think the game will be closer this time, but I'll stick with the Packers, who are probably the hottest team on the NFC side of the playoffs.

So, if my predictions are correct, next week's playoffs will be:

• In the NFC, Green Bay will play Minnesota for the third time this season, and Philadelphia will travel to New Orleans in a rematch of their Week 2 meeting.


• In the AFC, the top–seeded Indianapolis Colts will play host to the New York Jets, who handed them their first loss of the season a couple of weeks ago, and San Diego will play host to New England in what would be the first postseason game that is not a rematch of a regular–season contest.

Last week: 9–7.

Season: 180–78.

College Football Needs a Playoff

Alabama and Texas will face each other in college football's national championship game tonight.

For fans of college football — especially fans of those two football programs — this will be a major event, as it always is.

And there are all sorts of story lines:

• Quarterback Greg McElroy is the key to Alabama's fortunes, writes Jennifer Floyd Engel of the Fort Worth Star–Telegram.


• Kevin Sherrington of the Dallas Morning News says that Texas quarterback Colt McCoy needs to channel his "Heisman snub" the way Vince Young did four years ago.


• If you believe in the adage that defense wins championships, tonight's game will validate your position, says Kirk Bohls of the Austin American–Statesman.


• Vincent Bonsignore writes, in the Los Angeles Daily News, that the Longhorns better have more protection from their offensive line than they did when they yielded nine sacks to Nebraska in the Big 12 championship game last month.


• Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times is convinced the Tide will roll.


• Meanwhile, Don Kausler Jr. of the Birmingham News wonders if Alabama can rise to the occasion the way it did against Florida in the SEC championship game.

But the story line that really interests me comes from Jay Mariotti of FanHouse. Mariotti says — bluntly — "The BCS is B.S."

I agree.

I believe the BCS system is a sham. A real playoff system is needed. Every other college sport has a playoff system in place, including football — with the exception of Division I.

Until the mid–1960s, the NFL kind of did things the way the NCAA does now. It may be hard for many modern NFL fans to imagine, but it wasn't until 1967 that the NFL introduced a first round to the playoffs (after subdividing the league into four divisions instead of the two it had previously). Before that, the NFL champion (and, until 1969, the AFL as well, although a tie in the standings forced a divisional playoff the year before) was decided in a single–game postseason.

The wild–card concept was not introduced until the NFL–AFL merger, and over the years, the playoffs have continued to expand. Today, I doubt that you would find an NFL fan who would think it was satisfactory to decide on the Super Bowl entrants by pairing the top two teams in each league — and the NFL has 32 teams.

Tonight's game is supposed to decide the champion of college football's Division I, which has more than 100 members.

But college football doesn't permit a playoff system. It takes the winners of two big–name conferences and puts them on the same field, and they play each other for the national title. Supposedly, this is an improvement over the old system, in which pollsters chose the best team after the bowl games had been played.

Well, the only thing the BCS has done is guarantee that the top two teams (according to computerized rankings) face each other. In some eyes, that passes for improvement. More than once in the last month, I have heard it said that, in the old days, a top–ranked Alabama team and a second–ranked Texas team would not have played each other. Alabama would have gone to the Sugar Bowl, as SEC champions always did, and Texas would have gone to the Cotton Bowl, as SWC champions always did. They probably would have played inferior teams. They probably would have won. And the issue of which team deserved to be the national champion would not have been resolved.

But in the old days, more than two teams entered the New Year's Day bowl games with a chance at being national champion. I am reminded of 1978, when Heisman Trophy winner Earl Campbell and the University of Texas appeared poised to win the national title but lost the Cotton Bowl to Notre Dame, which was, if memory serves, ranked fifth.

That opened the door for another team to grab the national title, but the schools that were next in line all stumbled. When college football fans went to bed that night, there was a lot of suspense over which team would be #1. And, lo and behold, when the pollsters cast their votes the next day, Notre Dame had climbed from fifth to first.

Frankly, I preferred that to the BCS nonsense. On Jan. 2, 1978, fans who had tickets to the Sugar, Rose and Orange bowls started the day believing the national title would be claimed in Dallas. When that did not happen, the games in New Orleans, Pasadena and Miami all took on new meaning.

It wasn't a playoff, but it was better than the current system, in which we have nearly three dozen bowl games, but none of them matter to anyone besides the teams playing in them and their fans.

The only postseason college football game that everyone pays attention to is the one that will be played tonight, but the teams that play in it didn't have to earn their way in, as the schools that play for national titles in college basketball or college baseball or college hockey must do.

It can be argued that Alabama, like the challenger in boxing, earned its way in (sort of) because it had to knock off the defending champion. But the same cannot be said of Texas. In the Big 12 title game, the Longhorns barely got by a Nebraska team that lost three games during the regular season.

Of course, in the NCAA Tournament, the top–seeded teams start things off by playing the worst teams in the tournament field — but the quality of the competition gets better the deeper one goes. By the time the two finalists meet, they have been challenged by the best teams that are left — and few people can make a legitimate claim that either team did not deserve to be there.

Perhaps Alabama and Texas would have survived a college football playoff and met in tonight's championship game, anyway. We'll never know.

But until college football has a real playoff system, the questions about the legitimacy of the champion will persist.

The BCS has done nothing to change that.

Three Instant Rematches

NFL playoffs have frequently featured rematches of regular–season games. Some first–round playoff games have even wound up being rematches of regular–season finales.

But I can't remember a time when three first–round playoff games were rematches of regular–season finales.

Nevertheless, that is the situation we have this year.

One of next weekend's games is between two divisional rivals — Dallas and Philadelphia. When that has happened (and it has happened from time to time), you knew it was a rematch because divisional rivals play each other twice during the regular season. The fact that they faced each other in the final week of the season was coincidental.

As it turned out, though, they'll be playing each other in the same place — Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas. As division champs, the Cowboys earned the right to host the first–round game. As the sixth seed, the Eagles know they will have to win three straight games on the road to get to the Super Bowl.

The other first–round game in the NFC also is a rematch of one of Sunday's games, but it is not a pairing of divisional rivals. Green Bay whipped the defending NFC champion Arizona Cardinals on Arizona's home field, 33–7. Because of that, Green Bay finished the season with a better record than Arizona, but, because the Packers are a wild–card team, they must return to the desert to play Arizona next weekend.

In the AFC, the New York Jets whipped a listless Cincinnati Bengals team in the Meadowlands Sunday night but now, since the Jets are a wild–card team and the Bengals are a division champion, must travel to Cincinnati for the first–round playoff game.

Actually, all four of next weekend's playoff games are rematches from the regular season, but that other game, between Baltimore and New England, is a rematch of a game that was played three months ago, back in early October. It was, however, played in the same place where the teams will meet this weekend — Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.

I'll be back later this week to share my thoughts on this weekend's games.

NFL Crosses Regular-Season Finish Line Today

The NFL playoffs begin next week, and it is at this time of the year that I often turn my attention to what Peter King of Sports Illustrated has to say.

On the eve of the playoffs, King usually has some insights to share.

But King says there is no obvious favorite in the NFL right now. "[T]here's no lock in either conference," he writes. "That means the next month will be fun and maddening."

The playoff field is set in the NFC. All that needs to be done is settle on the order, which will be finalized with the outcomes of a few games on Sunday.

Three teams have clinched division titles in the NFC — New Orleans, Minnesota and Arizona. The winner of the Philadelphia–Dallas game will be the NFC East champ. The loser will be a wild–card team along with Green Bay.

Where the NFC's wild–card teams will play next week remains to be determined.

Things are a bit more unsettled in the AFC, although the four division winners are known — New England, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and San Diego. The Colts and Chargers have first–round byes.

What is not known is which two teams will be the AFC's wild–card teams, and seven teams enter the final weekend with a chance of grabbing one of those slots. It seems almost certain that tiebreakers will be factors when the dust settles.

Baltimore and the New York Jets control their own destinies, but their victories this week are far from certain. Based on season records, the Ravens probably have the easier assignment, facing 5–10 Oakland while the Jets must play the 10–5 Cincinnati Bengals. If either team stumbles, that will open the door for the Denver Broncos, who play 3–12 Kansas City. And, if the Broncos falter, there are scenarios that exist in which the Texans, Steelers, Dolphins and/or Jaguars could maneuver their way in.

But I like the Ravens' and Jets' chances, as I will explain in my predictions.

• San Francisco (7–8) at St. Louis (1–14) — There was a time when a 49ers–Rams game was the marquee matchup in the NFC West, but this game has been rendered totally irrelevant. The Rams haven't beaten the 49ers in St. Louis since Nov. 26, 2006. The 49ers won the first meeting between the teams this season, 35–0. It was their first shutout victory since 2002. I don't know if the 49ers will register another shutout, but I do think they will win by at least two scores.


• New England (10–5) at Houston (8–7) — The Texans can still make the playoffs, but they need some help. First, they absolutely positively must defeat New England — which is not such a tall order. If you're of the mindset that says beating New England is the embodiment of the impossible dream, your brain may be stuck in 2007, when the Patriots went undefeated during the regular season. But this is 2009, and location has a lot to do with whether the Pats appear likely to win or lose. They've gone 8–0 at home, but this game won't be played at home. The Patriots are 2–5 on the road. Unfortunately for Houston, though, the Texans have been better on the road than they have been at home. Consequently, there may not be much advantage for the Texans in the fact that the game will be played in Houston's Reliant Stadium, although if Houston wins, the Texans will secure their first winning season in their brief history, which will give their fans something to cheer about. Then, the Texans need at least two of the 8–7 teams in the AFC to lose today. Both New England and Houston are in the top five in the NFL in team offense and passing offense, and both are in the top 15 in team defense. The Pats are better against the pass than the Texans, though, so, on that basis, I'll give a slight edge to New England.


• Atlanta (8–7) at Tampa Bay (2–13) — Atlanta has a chance to post back–to–back winning seasons for the first time ever if the Falcons can beat the lowly Bucs. That's kind of an astonishing thing, considering Atlanta has had an NFL team for more than 40 years. But Atlanta has no chance of making the playoffs so the winning season is about their only motivation. This has been a pretty competitive series, with the teams splitting their last 12 meetings and Atlanta winning the first meeting this season, 20–17. I'll give the Falcons the edge this time, too, even though they have lost their last two games in Tampa Bay.


• New Orleans (13–2) at Carolina (7–8) — If the Saints win, they will sweep the Panthers for the first time since 2001. The way New Orleans has staggered through the last two games (both losses), that is far from a certain outcome. If the Saints want to go to their first Super Bowl, they need some momentum heading into the playoffs, and a win over Carolina may be just what the doctor ordered. But New Orleans' coach has decided to sit QB Drew Brees, safety Darren Sharper and tight end David Thomas because the Saints have clinched homefield through the NFC playoffs. I would have gone with New Orleans to win, since the Saints are 7–0 on the road and have the best pass offense in the NFC, but with Brees on the bench, I'm going to pick Carolina.


• Cincinnati (10–5) at New York Jets (8–7) — As remarkable as it may seem, if the Jets win, they're in — the playoffs, that is. The Bengals, on the other hand, are already in, but they cannot possibly earn a first–round bye. All that remains to be decided is which wild–card team they will play. That will be decided in part by whether the Bengals are seeded third or fourth behind New England, but, since neither of the wild–card teams are known yet, it is impossible to tell whether being seeded third or fourth is more advantageous. It isn't hard to imagine the Bengals pulling most of their starters to preserve them for the playoffs, allowing the Jets to win with their starters facing Cincy's second–teamers. The Bengals and Jets are playing the night game so the outcome of the New England game will be known by the time they kick off. If the Patriots win, the Bengals will have no rational reason to risk their starters in a regular–season finale that has no meaning for them. The Jets, on the other hand, come into the game with something to play for, no matter what happens in the rest of the contests. Can the Jets do it? I think, with the NFL's best team defense and best pass defense, along with the best rushing offense, they can pull it off and advance to the playoffs to face either the Bengals again or the division rival Patriots.


• Pittsburgh (8–7) at Miami (7–8) — The Steelers and the Dolphins are both longshots for the playoffs. For either team to get in, it will be necessary to win this game and then get a lot of help. But it is possible, at least in theory. In what may be a fit of paranoia, Pittsburgh linebacker LaMarr Woodley says the Patriots and Bengals will "lay down" to prevent the Steelers from being in the playoffs. I don't know if he is right about that, but I don't believe the Steelers will get all the help they need to qualify for the playoffs, whether deliberately or not, even though I do think they will defeat Miami.

---

The Cowboys certainly remember what happened
when they faced the Eagles in the season finale last year.

---

• Philadelphia (11–4) at Dallas (10–5) — More than half the games on the final weekend's schedule have a bearing on the playoffs, but more is on the line for both teams in this game. For openers, the winner will be the division champ. Philly even has a chance to clinch a first–round bye — if the Eagles win or tie. But if the Eagles lose, they could tumble to the sixth seed and probably would have to play the Cowboys in Dallas again next week. NFL.com analyst Bucky Brooks says the winner will be the team to beat in the NFC playoffs. A few weeks ago, that would have seemed laughable. Now, though, it clearly seems plausible. Dallas won the first meeting; I'll pick Philly to win the rematch.


• Jacksonville (7–8) at Cleveland (4–11) — It is astonishing that Jacksonville still has a chance to be a wild card. There are five scenarios in which the Jags get into the playoffs — but a lot of unlikely things would have to happen to make it so. I think the Jaguars will beat the Browns, but I don't think all the other things that need to happen for Jacksonville's season to continue will come to pass.


• New York Giants (8–7) at Minnesota (11–4) — If the Giants hadn't imploded against Carolina last week, one can only wonder what this game could have been. The Vikings actually could lose the first–round bye and limp into the playoffs with a three–game losing streak if they lose to the Giants, possibly setting up their third meeting with Green Bay in the process. I don't know if that will happen, but the Vikings do seem to be experiencing their version of the Brett Favre December collapse. Interestingly, the same teams met in the same place in last year's season finale, and Minnesota won on a last–second field goal. The Vikings have a three–game winning streak against the Giants and haven't lost to New York at home since Oct. 13, 2004. The Vikings are 7–0 at home, but I'm going to pick the Giants to upend them in this one.


• Indianapolis (14–1) at Buffalo (5–10) — You know that Peter King article I provide the link to at the start of this post? Well, King asks a good question concerning the Colts: "I don't like what Indy did Sunday," he writes, "but we knew it was coming. Why all the outrage?" When the Jets beat the Colts last Sunday, they preserved the 1972 Miami Dolphins' singular achievement of an undefeated season clear through the Super Bowl for another year at least. But how it happened seems to have left a bitter taste in many mouths in Indianapolis. Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star wrote that yanking quarterback Peyton Manning and several other starters in the second half, with the Colts nursing a mere five–point lead, amounted to "toss[ing] perfection away like a Christmas leftover." It was, without question, the smart thing to do since the Colts had already wrapped up homefield advantage through the AFC playoffs. Allowing the starters to risk serious injury while pursuing a perfect regular season would have jeopardized the Colts' championship chances. But now one must wonder if the Colts have halted their own momentum. There seems to be nothing to be gained in their season finale against Buffalo, but, with a bye week looming for the Colts while four AFC teams play next weekend, a win against the Bills could restore that momentum and make the difference as they prepare for whichever team comes a–calling the weekend of Jan. 16–17. Sunday will be almost 10 years to the day since the last time the Colts lost in Buffalo; they've won all three of the regular–season games they have played there since, but Dom Bonvissuto believes a loss to Buffalo actually is in the Colts' long–term interest. He observes in Sports Illustrated that the Colts need to lose to the Bills "for their fans' sanity sake. A win here followed by a run to the Super Bowl title will leave a huge What If hanging over a great season." I disagree with that. I think momentum is important, especially this year when, as King pointed out, no one seems to have the advantage. It is dicey to pick the Colts, even though they've won nearly three times as many games as the Bills, because no one except the Colts' coaching staff knows what the plan is for the starters. But I'm going to assume they do have something to play for this week so I'll pick Indianapolis to win.


• Chicago (6–9) at Detroit (2–13) — The Bears have won three straight against the Lions, and Chicago's coach probably needs a win to keep his job. My thinking is that a loss to the Lions would be too much for the Bears' management, and Chicago's coach likely would be shown the door, even though he took the Bears to the Super Bowl just a few years ago. In the absence of any playoff implications, that will have to provide all the motivation — and I think it will. I'll take Chicago.


• Washington (4–11) at San Diego (12–3) — After beating Tennessee on Christmas Day, the Chargers clinched a first–round bye. There is nothing to be gained in this game. The Colts have homefield advantage through the AFC playoffs so, unless the Chargers win their playoff game two weeks from now and the Colts lose, San Diego will only get one home game in the postseason, no matter what else may happen in the final weekend of NFL play. The Chargers may be motivated by a desire to extend their 10–game winning streak, and I think they will.


• Tennessee (7–8) at Seattle (5–10) — Thanks to their loss to San Diego on Christmas Day, the Titans were eliminated from the playoff hunt, rendering this game meaningless. They may be somewhat listless in this game, and they haven't been too impressive on the road, going 2–5 so far this year. Seattle, on the other hand, is 4–3 at home — and the Seahawks have known for some time that they would not be in the playoffs. I'm going to take Seattle in this one.


• Kansas City (3–12) at Denver (8–7) — At one point, Denver looked like a sure thing for the playoffs. But they have lost seven of their last nine, and a win over the Chiefs won't be enough by itself to put the Broncos in the playoffs. To accomplish that, the Broncos will need some help. I think they'll beat the Chiefs (Denver whipped Kansas City, 44–13, earlier in the season), but I don't think they'll get as much help as they need to move on to the postseason.


• Baltimore (8–7) at Oakland (5–10) — The Ravens have beaten the Raiders the last two times they have played, but their last loss to the Raiders came in Oakland on Dec. 14, 2003. Statistically, the Ravens have been much better than the Raiders on both sides of the ball, but the advantage is more pronounced on defense, where Baltimore is third in the NFL while Oakland is 27th. I think the Ravens will win handily — and advance to the playoffs.


• Green Bay (10–5) at Arizona (10–5) — Right now, the presumption seems to be that these teams will meet again next week in the first round of the playoffs so this may serve as a playoff preview. Of course, something entirely unexpected could occur, and they might face different first–round foes. In fact, it is still possible that Arizona could get a first–round bye — but, in addition to needing an Arizona win over Green Bay, that would call for help from Dallas against Philly and the Giants against the Vikings. The Packers' defense is a little dinged up, but it's ranked #1 in the NFL and, therefore, could cause some problems for the Cards. The Cardinals have nothing special to play for, and I expect them to keep much of their strategy under wraps, preferring to wait until an anticipated rematch with the Packers next week before revealing it. As a result, I will pick Green Bay to win this week.

Last week: 11–5.

Season: 171–71.