And the National Champion Will Be ...

---

---

National Championship

#1 Alabama Crimson Tide (14–0) vs. #2 Clemson Tigers (13–1)
Raymond James Stadium in Tampa
7 p.m. (Central)
ESPN

---

I'm a history buff, and I tend to look at things from the perspective of history. The topic doesn't matter. Everything has a history, and that history can tell us a lot. It's a matter of recognizing what history is trying to tell you.

It is often said that history repeats itself. I tend to agree with Mark Twain, who said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Usually, there's a lot of rhymin'.

The history of the Alabama–Clemson football series is that Alabama has dominated. To be fair, Clemson did win the first two meetings, which were in 1904 and 1905. Alabama has won the 13 games that have been played since — including last year's national championship game.

So history would suggest that Alabama will win the national championship in Tampa — because Alabama always beats Clemson.

But past performance is no guarantee of future results.

What is true of past seasons may prove to be true of the just–concluded regular season, but it is important to consider how these teams performed in that 2016 season. It has more relevance than what happened a century ago — although what happened in the past does contribute to mindset. As Vince Lombardi said, "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible."

You can argue that Alabama will win tonight's game because it won a stronger conference — or, at least, one that is perceived to be stronger — than the conference Clemson won.

But Clemson's Atlantic Coast Conference has beaten Alabama's Southeastern Conference in three out of four bowl confrontations last month.

In most football games, the quarterback is regarded as the position that is most critical to a team's success. In the national rankings in nine categories, Alabama QB Jalen Hurts was in the Top 20 in only one — completion percentage. He was 16th. That's a good thing, right? It is — except that Clemson's Deshaun Watson, the Heisman runner–up, was ranked eighth.

Hurts, a freshman, and Watson, a junior, attempted almost the same number of passes so it is a valid comparison — and Watson was in the Top 20 in seven categories and was usually in the Top 10. He threw 38 touchdown passes, and Hurts threw 21, but Watson threw 17 interceptions (Hurts threw nine).

Junior wideout Mike Williams is the receiving target Alabama most needs to stop. Williams caught 90 passes for 1,267 yards for Clemson, but the Crimson Tide can't afford to ignore sophomore Deon Cain, who averaged 19.1 yards per catch.

Running back isn't the focus of either offense. Alabama's Damien Harris averaged 7.2 yards per carry — but he only averaged about 10 carries per game. Clemson's Wayne Gallman ran for 16 touchdowns (Harris ran for only two), but his rushing average was a more pedestrian 5.1 yards per carry.

On defense, Clemson senior defensive tackle Carlos Watkins had 10½ sacks this season. But, as a team, Alabama's defense was the best in the nation this season. The Crimson Tide was one of only three teams to give up less than 100 yards rushing per game (the other two were Wisconsin and Western Kentucky) and forced an average of 1.9 turnovers per game (same as Clemson).

And Alabama yielded an average of 11.4 points per game; no other defense gave up fewer points, on average, this season.

Ultimately, I am inclined to think that the defense will make the difference, but, while oddsmakers say Alabama is a 6½–point pick, I am more of the mind that Alabama will win by three points.

Last week: 9–7

Overall: 204–72

Postponed: 1

Last week's upset specials: 2–3

Overall upset specials: 14–24

Choosing a Champion

---

---

My father and I were watching the Las Vegas Bowl on TV about a week ago. Please don't judge us. Withdrawal from college football does not come easily.

Anyway, the game ended (mercifully) and the broadcasting crew announced that, after a commercial break, the broadcast would resume with the presentation of the bowl trophy to the winning team. And it occurred to me that, even though I had watched most of the game, I had no real interest in watching a trophy being given to the winner.

I would guess that most bowl viewers feel the same way.

There are how many bowls now — 40? I suppose there will always be pockets of viewers who really do want to see the trophy being awarded after each bowl — mostly folks who have some connection to the winning school — but the only one that really matters, the only one that nearly all college football followers will want to see is the one that is awarded after the national championship game on Jan. 9, 2017.

At the risk of sounding like I have succumbed to good old days syndrome, I often think things were better when there were only a handful of bowls. All the extra games are great for hard–core fans who only want to see football, but only a handful have any real meaning, which is really the way that it used to be. The only difference is that, of the handful of meaningful games, only two will decide who will play for the national title. And we won't know who those two teams are until Saturday night.

Back when polls ruled, there was occasionally ambiguity about the national champion, but it was hard to beat the drama sometimes. When I was a boy, I recall a year when Texas was undefeated and ranked No. 1 going into bowl season. As the SWC champions, the Longhorns were the host team in the Cotton Bowl. All they had to do was win that game, which began around noon on Jan. 2 (New Year's Day fell on a Sunday that year so the New Year's Day bowls were played the following day), and they were sure to be national champs.

But they lost.

At that point, speculation began about who might move up in the polls the next day and claim the national crown. The top contenders were Oklahoma, Alabama and Michigan, all of whom played after the Cotton Bowl concluded. Oklahoma and Michigan lost their bowls. Alabama won its bowl, but the Crimson Tide lost to Nebraska (9–3 that year) earlier in the season.

The pollsters picked Notre Dame — the team that beat Texas — to be national champ in a year that saw half a dozen teams finish with a single loss.

When the bowl games were done and the nation awaited the pollsters' verdict, there was an excitement in the air. Who would be named national champion? There were several plausible contenders, and supporters of each could make good cases.

Under the current playoff arrangement, the only similar drama might occur when a playoff field is chosen and a deserving team (or more) fails to make the cut — and all that really proves is that the playoff field as it exists is not adequate.

Now I know this would add about a week to the season, but the field should at least be doubled to eight teams.

College football wants to replicate college basketball's phenomenally popular national tournament, but a huge reason for its popularity is the number of teams who are given the chance to compete. You can't start with the Final Four. Teams must earn their way in.

Expanding the field would add more drama to the playoffs. I absolutely believe college football will acquiesce on this — eventually.

Once the final gun sounds on the night of Jan. 9, though, there won't be any drama. The winners of the New Year's Eve semifinals will meet that night, and the winner of that game will be proclaimed the champion. Just like the Super Bowl, really. No muss, no fuss. And maybe that is as it should be.

But it isn't nearly as much fun.

Tuesday, Dec. 27

• Military Bowl: #23 Temple vs. Wake Forest, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: You have to go back to the year after the Stock Market Crash to find the only time these schools have met.
  
  But with Temple coach Matt Rhule leaving for Baylor, there is an element of intrigue in this game.
  
  Temple, after all, is coming off a season–ending win over Navy, and the Owls are favored by 13½ points. It's a good job opportunity for Ruhle — and a good opportunity to impress the folks in Waco even though Rhule won't be coaching against Wake Forest. Still, the team's performance will speak volumes about Rhule's coaching skill — and whether Baylor hired the right guy. I pick Temple to win.

Wednesday, Dec. 28

• Russell Athletic Bowl: #14 West Virginia vs. Miami (Fla.), 4:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This is the 20th time these schools have met but only the first since 2003.
  
  For a couple of decades, they were conference rivals, and Miami dominated the series. The 'Canes have only lost to West Virginia three times.
  
  The oddsmakers think Miami will win again, having established the 'Canes as 3½–point favorites. But I am making West Virginia an upset special.
• New Era Pinstripes Bowl: #22 Pittsburgh vs. Northwestern, 1 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These schools have faced each other half a dozen times, and each team has won three.
  
  But they haven't met in more than 40 years.
  
  Pitt is favored by 5½ points, and that is good enough for me in this one. I pick Pittsburgh.

Thursday, Dec. 29

• Valero Alamo Bowl: #13 Oklahoma State vs. #11 Colorado, 8 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These schools were members of the same conference for decades until Colorado left for the Pac–12.
  
  They will meet for the first time since 2009. Colorado leads the all–time series, but Oklahoma State has won three of the last four encounters.
  
  What is more, Oklahoma State seems to be playing better than Colorado here at the end of the season. Well, that is what I think. The oddsmakers think Colorado is a three–point favorite. I will make Oklahoma State an upset special.
• Belk Bowl: #18 Virginia Tech vs. Arkansas, 4:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: SEC schools have won the last two Belk Bowls, but this will be Arkansas' first visit to the Charlotte, N.C., bowl.
  
  It will also be Virginia Tech's first appearance in the Belk Bowl.
  
  And it will be the first meeting between the schools. Oddsmakers have made Virginia Tech a seven–point favorite, but I'll take Arkansas as an upset special.
• Birmingham Bowl: #25 South Florida vs. South Carolina, 1 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: South Carolina won the only previous meeting between these schools in September 2004.
  
  South Florida is favored by 10½ points. The spread might be smaller than that, but I agree that South Florida should prevail.

Friday, Dec. 30

• Capital One Orange Bowl: #6 Michigan vs. #10 Florida State, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These teams have faced each other twice, but the last meeting was more than 25 years ago.
  
  Michigan was one of the better teams in the country this year. Until the Wolverines lost to Ohio State, I thought they would be in the college football playoffs.
  
  I guess the Orange Bowl isn't bad compensation for missing the playoffs.
  
  I wasn't overly impressed with Florida State, and apparently neither were the oddsmakers. They make the Wolverines 6½–point favorites. I agree. Michigan should win.
• Hyundai Sun Bowl: #16 Stanford vs. North Carolina, 1 p.m. (Central) on CBS: These teams played twice in the '90s with each team winning once at home.
  
  This is their first meeting in nearly 20 years and their first meeting ever on a neutral site.
  
  Stanford is a 31½–point pick. I'd like to pick the Southern team (my father always told me, all things being equal, pull for the Southern team), but I have to take Stanford in this one.
• Franklin Amer. Mort. Music City Bowl: #24 Nebraska vs. Tennessee, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This is a meeting between two storied programs.
  
  Both of their previous meetings were in bowl games. Nebraska was the winner on both occasions.
  
  Tennessee is a 3½–point pick this time, but I'm not convinced, mainly because I have seen both teams play this year, and I know that both have flaws. I honestly feel this game could go either way.
  
  It is almost a home game for the Volunteers. On that basis, I will pick Tennessee.

Saturday, Dec. 31

• Semifinal #1, Chick–fil–A Peach Bowl: #4 Washington vs. #1 Alabama, 2 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: I grew up in the South, and my father taught me to support the Southern teams. Arkansas was the football team where I grew up, and that meant the Southwest Conference, but the Razorbacks left the SWC for the Southeastern Conference in the early '90s.
  
  Alabama is a charter member of the SEC, much as Arkansas was a charter member of the SWC. For many reasons, I should pull for Alabama — but somehow I find it hard to do that. It wasn't hard for me to pull for Alabama when Bear Bryant was the coach. I admired him. I even got to see him coach in person once.
  
  But things are different now. I am not sure why that is so.
  
  What isn't different is that Alabama wins — a lot. And the Crimson Tide is likely to win this one, too. The oddsmakers clearly think so. They have made Alabama a 15–point favorite.
  
  It is hard to argue with that one, really.
  
  Alabama has a very good team. It is already being compared to some of the greatest college football teams of all time. I can't find a single reason to predict a loss for the Crimson Tide. I'll be pulling for the other team, but I predict that Alabama will prevail.
• Semifinal #2, PlayStation Fiesta Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #3 Clemson, 6 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These teams have met twice, and Clemson won both meetings.
  
  The first time was in the 1978 Gator Bowl. Clemson sealed the win with a late interception, and Ohio State coach Woody Hayes sealed his fate by punching the Clemson player who picked off the pass. That ended Hayes' 28–year career as the Buckeyes' coach.
  
  The second meeting was in the 2014 Orange Bowl. Then as now, Ohio State has a higher ranking and the oddsmakers' blessing. In the Orange Bowl, the Buckeyes were 2½–point favorites. This time they're 3½–point favorites.
  
  I suppose most people are picking Ohio State to win. But don't underestimate Clemson's motivation — the Tigers want to avenge last year's 45–40 loss to Alabama in the national championship game. Of course, by the time they kick off in Arizona, everyone will know whether Alabama beat Washington; if the Huskies pull off the upset, it might deflate Clemson somewhat. But I don't think that will happen.
  
  I have a hunch, and I'm going to make Clemson an upset special.
• Buffalo Wild Wings Citrus Bowl: #19 LSU vs. #15 Louisville, 10 a.m. (Central) on ABC: Ever since the bowl lineup was announced, I thought this one had the potential to be the most entertaining bowl game of the bunch. It might even outshine the two national playoff games that will be played later in the day.
  
  It's intriguing to note that, while LSU lost four games, it did so by a combined 23 points — and nearly half of those points were scored by top–ranked Alabama. Louisville lost three games, but the last two were by a combined 29 points.
  
  In an upset special I take LSU.

Monday, Jan. 2, 2017

• Rose Bowl: #5 Penn State vs. #9 Southern Cal, 4 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This will be the 10th time these schools have faced each other — and the third time they have faced each other in the Rose Bowl.
  
  Their first Rose Bowl encounter was nearly a century ago on New Year's Day 1923. Southern Cal won that one 14–3.
  
  That was the first time they ever faced each other. The most recent time they faced each other was in Pasadena on New Year's Day 2009. Southern Cal won that one, too, by 38–24.
  
  Oddsmakers like Southern Cal to win this time as well, but the point spread is in single digits — 6½ points. But I like Penn State in this one. I won't call this one an upset special because Penn State is the higher ranked team, but clearly it would be an upset in the eyes of the oddsmakers.
• Allstate Sugar Bowl: #17 Auburn vs. #7 Oklahoma, 7:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This ought to be one of the better bowls this year.
  
  It has been 45 years since the only time these schools met — in the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day 1972. Oklahoma won by 18 points on that occasion. Oddsmakers think the Sooners will win by about half that. I pick Oklahoma.
• Goodyear Cotton Bowl: #8 Wisconsin vs. #12 Western Michigan, noon (Central) on ESPN: These schools have faced each other four times, but the last time was in 2000.
  
  Wisconsin won three of those four contests, and the Badgers are favored to win this one by 7½ points, which suggests a close contest, but it's hard for me to imagine this game generating much interest locally.
  
  I used to work with a guy from Wisconsin. If he is so inclined, I imagine he can get tickets to this one pretty easily — and they could be pretty good seats, too. If he does go, I expect him to enjoy himself. I pick Wisconsin to win.
• Outback Bowl: #20 Florida vs. #21 Iowa, noon (Central) on ABC: These schools have met three times, each time in a bowl game, and this will be their third straight meeting in the Outback Bowl.
  
  Florida won the last time, 11 years ago to the day, and Iowa won the time before. The one non–Outback meeting was in the 1983 Gator Bowl. Florida won that one.
  
  So the Gators hold a 2–1 lead in the series. Oddsmakers have made the Gators favorites to make it a 3–1 advantage, but Iowa, it is worth noting, defeated Michigan and then hammered Nebraska in the season finale. I pick Iowa in an upset special.

I shall predict the national championship game on Jan. 9.

Last week: 6–2

Overall: 195–65

Postponed: 1

Last week's upset specials: 0–0

Overall upset specials: 12–21

Ranked Teams Start Playing in Bowls Today

---

---

This is always a bittersweet time of the year for me. I love college football, and I hate to see the season end, but I always enjoy the bowls. Some more than others, of course.

That goes back to my childhood, I guess. There weren't nearly as many bowls then as there are now, and being in a bowl was special. It was a reward for a great season, and most were played on New Year's Day. What a great way to start a new year. And there was often a real mystery as to who would end up being the national champion. If certain things happened, a group of football players who woke up on New Year's Day with no expectation of being judged the best team in the land could go to bed that night with a legitimate hope that the pollsters would rank them #1 the next day.

I have seen it happen.

In those days, not every team in the then–Top 20 got a bowl bid. Many did, but many did not. There are so many bowls now that all the teams in the Top 25 and nearly five dozen more will be playing an extra game. There are so many bowls now that even teams with losing records are being permitted to play in some.

I grew up in Arkansas, and I can recall many years when the Razorbacks had seasons that would have qualified them for a bowl today — but for which they were not rewarded with a bowl bid at the time. It seems to me we've gone from one extreme to another. There must be a happy middle ground where an appropriate number of teams are rewarded for a good season but aren't simply rewarded for participating. For being there.

In the meantime, though, the Razorbacks have been back in bowl games the last two seasons, and I enjoy watching them play, even if I am not convinced that they deserve to be playing in the postseason.

Today

• Las Vegas Bowl, Las Vegas: Brigham Young vs. #20 Utah, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Until about five years ago, these two teams were conference rivals, and this will be the 90th time they have faced each other. Utah holds the all–time advantage and has won five of the last six meetings.
  
  If one judges by the schools' national rankings in total offense, though, the edge in this game belongs to BYU, #47 nationally while Utah is #86. BYU holds a slender advantage in total defense as well. The Cougars are #36 nationally while Utah is #41.
  
  But it is important to remember that Utah plays in the Pac–12 while BYU is an independent. Both teams are 9–3. Utah started the season strongly but kind of fizzled near the end. BYU started slowly but finished with wins in seven of their last eight games.
  
  I'm guessing it will be a good game. Seven of their last nine meetings were decided by a touchdown or less. Momentum is with Brigham Young, and I'm picking the Cougars to win in an upset special.

Monday, Dec. 21

• Miami Beach Bowl, Miami: #25 Western Kentucky vs. South Florida, 1:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These teams have met twice before, and South Florida won both games.
  
  However, Western Kentucky wasn't 11–2 in those years (2009 and 2010) as it is this year. In fact, Western Kentucky was the exact opposite — a combined 2–22 in those two seasons.
  
  Besides, Western Kentucky is sixth in the nation in total offense (South Florida is 46th). South Florida has the edge in total defense (#37) while Western Kentucky is #88.
  
  I'm guessing that defensive deficiency will hurt Western Kentucky in this game, and that South Florida, playing what amounts to a home game, will be enough to lift unranked South Florida to an upset victory.

Tuesday, Dec. 22

• Boca Raton Bowl, Boca Raton, Fla.: Toledo vs. #24 Temple, 6 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This will be the 10th time these teams have met, and Toledo has won two–thirds of the time.
  
  Both teams have been better on defense than on offense this year; of the two, Toledo (9–2) has the edge over Temple (11–3) in the national rankings on defense. For that matter, the Rockets have been more productive on offense, too.
  
  I pick Toledo in yet another upset special.

Monday, Dec. 28

• Military Bowl, Annapolis, Md.: Pittsburgh vs. #21 Navy, 1:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These are familiar rivals, having played each other 39 times before. Pitt holds the advantage in the all–time series, winning about 60% of the time.
  
  And Pitt has won six of the last eight meetings — but Navy won the last meeting.
  
  Statistically, Navy's offense has been better than Pitt's, but Navy is only ranked 61st nationally in total offense. In total defense, Pittsburgh is ranked #23, and Pitt is ranked #42 — so this game figures to be more defensive than offensive.
  
  If that turns out to be the case — and I think it will — I pick Pittsburgh in an another upset special.

Tuesday, Dec. 29

• Russell Athletic Bowl, Orlando, Fla.: #10 North Carolina vs. #18 Baylor, 4:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This should be one of the more interesting bowl games to be played before the national semifinals in which, until recently, the Baylor Bears hoped they would be participants.
  
  The North Carolina Tar Heels probably never had such hopes even though they ran the table in the ACC until coming up against top–ranked Clemson in the ACC championship game — which North Carolina might well have won had it not been for some bad officiating. Most likely, the Tar Heels couldn't have leaped past enough teams in the rankings to claim a spot in the Final Four if they had won — but they certainly would have deprived the Tigers of a berth in the semifinals, which would have been almost as good.
  
  That didn't happen, though, so North Carolina finds itself playing Baylor. The Bears spent most of the season ranked well ahead of just about everyone, but they stumbled badly down the stretch. Even so, Baylor is ranked second nationally in total offense. North Carolina is pretty good on offense, too. The Tar Heels are ranked 11th.
  
  Neither team finished in the top 50 in total defense so I am inclined to think that offense will rule in this game. And North Carolina's defense has been so weak this year that I expect Baylor to get back into that 50–plus–points–a–game mode the Bears were in for first six games of the season.
  
  I pick Baylor.
• Texas Bowl, Houston: Texas Tech vs. #22 LSU, 8 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These teams met twice in the '50s, but this will be their first encounter in nearly 60 years.
  
  Still, it doesn't seem that much has changed. LSU won those first two encounters and seems likely to win this one.
  
  But, as Lee Corso would say, "Not ... so ... fast."
  
  Texas Tech had the #4 offense in the land this season (LSU was #74). LSU's defense was #10. Will that be enough to contain the Red Raiders? I don't know, but it looks like it could be kind of ugly on both sides of the scrimmage line when LSU has the ball. Tech's defense is ranked #100 in the nation.
  
  The marquee matchup will be Tech's offense against LSU's defense, but I expect the other matchup to be the one that generates headlines. I pick LSU.

Wednesday, Dec. 30

• Holiday Bowl, San Diego: Southern Cal vs. #23 Wisconsin, 9:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: It has been nearly 50 years since these teams faced each other. In all they have played each other six times — twice in Rose Bowls — and Southern Cal has won every time.
  
  Like most Pac–12 schools, the emphasis is on offense at Southern Cal, and the Trojans rank #22 nationally in total offense whereas Wisconsin is #84. But I am one of those who believes that defense wins championships — and bowl games — and Wisconsin's is second in the nation (Southern Cal is 94th in total defense).
  
  San Diego may be a short trip for the Trojans, but I believe Wisconsin will prevail.

Thursday, Dec. 31

• Peach Bowl, Atlanta: #14 Houston vs. #9 Florida State, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: What a blockbuster game this would have been in the Guy Lewis basketball era at Houston. It might even have been a blockbuster in the Bill Yeoman days in football.
  
  But Houston, frankly, plays a lower–caliber schedule now than it did then. The quality of Florida State's competition hasn't changed much.
  
  There was a time (1960–78) when these schools faced each other just about every year, and Houston won more than 80% of the time.
  
  But their last meeting was in 1978 so that doesn't have a lot of relevance to the modern teams, does it?
  
  Speaking of the modern teams, Houston's offense was tied for #11 with North Carolina while Florida State was #50. Of course the quality of the respective leagues' defenses had lot to do with that. And speaking of defense, Florida State finished #16 while Houston was #77.
  
  Both offenses look like they will probably be able to score. Houston's defense has been much weaker than Florida State's, which makes me think that Florida State will prevail.
• Orange Bowl (national semifinal), Miami: #4 Oklahoma vs. #1 Clemson, 3 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: The first of college football's semifinals matches two very good teams in a rematch of last year's Russell Athletic Bowl.
  
  The all–time series is tied at 2–2, but the last two games were bowl games. Oklahoma won the first two games, which were played in Norman.
  
  And, appropriately for a college football semifinal, both teams have good offenses and defenses, although Clemson has the edge in both categories. It is particularly close in the national rankings — Clemson's offense is #8 while Oklahoma's is #10. The Sooners scored at least 30 points in each game they played — except the one they lost to Texas. Clemson was held under 30 points three times. That sounds like offenses will be the postgame story, no matter who the winner is.
  
  And I think it will be Clemson.
• Cotton Bowl (national semifinal), Arlington, Texas: #3 Michigan State vs. #2 Alabama, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This might very well be the game of the postseason.
  
  Alabama has the #3 defense in the land, but Michigan State has a kind of a sneaky defense. The Spartans are only ranked #46 in defense, but, other than Nebraska, no team scored more than 28 points against Michigan State. In fact, five of Michigan State's foes were held under 20 points.
  
  Alabama won their only previous meeting — the 2011 Capital One Bowl — and won it by six touchdowns. I wouldn't expect such an easy time in this one. Alabama's defense is ranked 34th while Michigan State's is 43rd. Alabama does have the Heisman Trophy winner. Ironically, the 2011 Capital One Bowl was the last time that Alabama had a current or former Heisman Trophy winner in the lineup. That was Mark Ingram, who scored two touchdowns in his final collegiate game.
  
  I don't think the score will be nearly as lopsided this time, but I do think the same team will win. I pick Alabama.

Friday, Jan. 1

• Outback Bowl, Tampa, Fla.: #12 Northwestern vs. Tennessee, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN2: These teams met once before — in the '97 Citrus Bowl — and Tennessee won that one. Peyton Manning was the game's MVP.
  
  The Vols could probably use Manning in this game. Even at his age, it couldn't hurt.
  
  The stats don't really clarify things. Northwestern had one of the best defenses in the land this year — #8 nationally — but one of the worst offenses — #117. Tennessee was around #50 in both categories.
  
  Northwestern opened the season impressively with a win over Stanford (who can be seen in the Rose Bowl) and won its first six games but stumbled in the middle of the season against Michigan and Iowa (who will be playing Stanford in the Rose Bowl). Tennessee had high hopes when the season began but lost three conference games before Halloween. The Vols come into this game riding a five–game winning streak, which sounds better than it is. None of those wins came against a team with a winning record.
  
  I'm an SEC boy, and I pull for Southern teams whenever I can, but I have to be honest and say that Northwestern probably will win.
• Citrus Bowl, Orlando, Fla.: #17 Michigan vs. #19 Florida, noon (Central) on ABC: This will be the third time these teams have met, and each game was played on New Year's Day. Their most recent encounter was in this same bowl — only it was called the Capital One Bowl in those days.
  
  Neither team was impressive on offense this year, but Michigan was impressive on defense, ranking fourth in the land. Florida was pretty good on defense, too, with a #12 ranking.
  
  It looks like this game will be a defensive struggle. Michigan's offense was anemic at #72, but Florida's was positively pedestrian at #98. All things considered, I have to pick Michigan to win.
• Fiesta Bowl, Glendale, Ariz.: #8 Notre Dame vs. #7 Ohio State, noon (Central) on ESPN: If you want to see a game between two really big names, this is it. It really doesn't get much bigger than a game between Notre Dame and Ohio State.
  
  They have only played five times before — and never during Woody Hayes' tenure. Isn't that remarkable? Well, maybe not. For most of Hayes' time at Ohio State, the Big Ten would not permit any members other than the league champion to play in a bowl. Since the Big Ten champion always went to the Rose Bowl and faced the champion of the Pac–8 or Pac–10 conference, that meant the schools would have had to schedule a nonconference game.
  
  They could have done that. Hayes coached in nonconference games against Oklahoma and Penn State — and, for all I know, he tried to arrange for a game with Notre Dame, but a point or two could not be resolved. Anyway, they never played each other when Hayes was at Ohio State, and that is a shame. It could have been fun, especially when Ara Parseghian was still coaching at South Bend.
  
  Ohio State has a huge edge on defense. The Buckeyes are #7; Notre Dame is #37, which isn't bad unless you're facing a team that is in the Top 10. The Irish have the advantage on offense (#28 to #45), but I doubt that it can get the best of Ohio State's defense enough to put a reasonable number of points on the board. After all, the Buckeyes held opponents under 20 points in 75% of their games this season.
  
  I've always believed in the saying, "Defense wins championships," and I think defense will win the Fiesta Bowl for Ohio State.
• Rose Bowl, Pasadena, Calif.: #5 Stanford vs. #6 Iowa, 4 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These teams have never faced each other before, but both teams have faced Northwestern this season, as I mentioned earlier. Stanford lost in the opener; Iowa prevailed in midseason.
  
  Based on that comparison, the logical conclusion would be that Iowa will win this game. But I learned a long time ago that comparing outcomes against common opponents wasn't a good way to predict future games.
  
  The teams really reflect the priorities in their conferences. Iowa comes from the more defensive–minded Big Ten and is ranked 36th in the nation (Stanford is #71). The Pac–12 favors offense, and Stanford is ranked #27 in that category (Iowa is #48).
  
  It looks pretty even to me, but I'm usually inclined to favor the more defensive–minded school when it looks like a draw, especially in bowl games. So I'll take Iowa.
• Sugar Bowl, New Orleans: #13 Oklahoma State vs. #16 Ole Miss, 7:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This will be the third meeting between these schools. Their first two encounters were in the Cotton Bowl. The change of scenery can't hurt.
  
  But will it change the outcome? Ole Miss won those first two games, and statistics suggest the Rebels have the edge again.
  
  According to the rankings, this should be an offensive game. Ole Miss is ranked #14 in total offense while Oklahoma State is ranked #20. Ole Miss also has the edge on defense, which isn't saying much. The Rebels are ranked #53; Oklahoma State is ranked #90.
  
  I expect a lot of scoring, but, in the end, Ole Miss will win.

Saturday, Jan. 2

• Alamo Bowl, San Antonio: #15 Oregon vs. #11 TCU, 5:45 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Historically, these teams have played twice — in the late '70s. Each won on the other's home field.
  
  This game is being played on a neutral site — although Fort Worth, Texas, is much closer to San Antonio than Eugene, Oregon, is.
  
  Both teams are in the Top 10 in offense. TCU is #4, and Oregon is #9. Neither team was particularly impressive on defense — but Oregon was spectacularly bad, ranking #115. I pick TCU to prevail.

Last week: 5–1

Upset specials last week: 1–0

Season: 188–52

Upset specials overall: 8–14

The End of Miami's Reign

---

---

In the early '70s, the team of the decade seemed to be the Miami Dolphins. Mostly, that was due to the Dolphins' perfect season in 1972. It seemed to set them up for a long stretch of success, one that might extend through the entire decade.

As great as the '72 team was, though, I always thought the '73 team was better because it had to defend the '72 team's legacy. The '73 team came into the season with a gigantic target painted squarely on each player's chest. For every team that played the Dolphins in '73, that was the game of the year.

The '73 team stood up to that challenge, going 12–2 and returning to the Super Bowl and winning. Thus, over that two–year span, Miami won 32 of 34 games.

So, when the 1974 season began, Miami was a two–time defending Super Bowl champion with a .941 winning percentage over the previous two seasons. The Dolphins started the season with a loss to New England, then won 11 of the next 13 games. It looked like the Dolphins might get the chance to win their third straight Super Bowl.

Standing in their way, though, were the Oakland Raiders, the same bunch who snapped their legendary winning streak in the second week of the season after the history–making 17–0 campaign. In the AFC semifinals on this date in 1974, the 11–3 Dolphins took the field against the 12–2 Raiders in Oakland.

It was widely assumed that, with the winner slated to face either the Pittsburgh Steelers or the Buffalo Bills in the AFC championship game the following week, the winner of this game would represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. At halftime, it appeared it would be Miami. The Dolphins led, 10–7.

But the Raiders outscored the Dolphins, 21–16, in the second half and won on Clarence Davis' eight–yard touchdown run in the fourth quarter.

The Raiders advanced to the AFC title game against the Steelers. Everyone thought the Raiders would win. The Steelers had never been to a Super Bowl before. Of course, the Raiders had only been to one at that time, but they had come close frequently. Their time had come. That was what the conventional wisdom said.

But times changed. The Raiders lost to the Steelers, and Terry Bradshaw went on to lead Pittsburgh to the first of four Super Bowl titles in six years.

Christmas Eve

---

---

When I was a child, there was a certain sameness to every Christmas and every Christmas Eve.

We lived about 330 miles from Dallas, where my parents grew up and where my grandparents lived until they died. My father was a college professor so, as soon as his school dismissed for the holidays and my brother and I were dismissed from our schools for the holidays, the family would pack up the car and hit the road for Dallas.

Both of my grandfathers died before I reached the age of 10, but we always stayed with my mother's mother when we were in town and we always visited my father's mother.

In addition to the family obligations, Christmas in Dallas always involved visiting all my parents' friends who were still in the area — and there were quite a few. Sometimes we planned group outings; if a good movie was showing, we might assemble for lunch and a matinee. If a Pink Panther movie was showing, seeing it was a sure thing.

The friends frequently gathered on Christmas Eve to drink wine and nibble on snacks. When I got a little older, I was allowed to join the festivity. I wasn't allowed to drink the wine until I was old enough to do so legally, but I drank soft drinks and enjoyed the snacks.

Well, that was how the holidays typically played out when I was growing up.

But I remember one special Christmas Eve — 40 years ago today — that I spent watching football with my father's mother.

Since I was a child, I have been a Green Bay Packers fan, and I guess I became a fan of the Packers in much the same way that most others do. They were the top team when I was little and I saw football on TV for the first time.

My family didn't have a TV until after the Vince Lombardi era, but our neighbors did, and that was where I saw football for the first time and became a Packers fan.

The Packers were terrible when I began following them and calling them my favorite team, but things changed — or seemed to — 40 years ago when Green Bay took the NFC Central crown from the Minnesota Vikings, who usually won that division in those years.

And on this day 40 years ago, the Packers played the Washington Redskins in the playoffs.

I remember little about that day except that I was excited about the Packers being in the playoffs. My mother and father and brother wanted to do some last–minute Christmas shopping, but I wanted to watch the football game. So my grandmother offered to stay with me that afternoon and watch the game while the rest of the family went shopping.

The Packers were never really in that game — the Redskins went on to lose to the undefeated Miami Dolphins in the Super Bowl — but I remember sharing the experience of watching that game with my grandmother.

There weren't many times in my life when I got to share something with her like that, and she died less than four years later. It is a cherished memory for me now — even though I can't remember anything we said that afternoon. I just remember that she cheered when something good happened for the Packers, even though not much did.

Grandmother was a Cowboys fan — and her Cowboys went on to lose to the Redskins the next week — but she cheered for the Packers that day just because they were my favorite team.

The Immaculate Reception

---

---

When I was growing up, the Pittsburgh Steelers were the bottom feeders of the NFL.

But all that changed rather suddenly in 1972.

The Steelers won their division and appeared in a postseason game for the first time in a quarter of a century.

That game was against the Oakland Raiders, at the time the most successful team in the NFL, 40 years ago today, and it seemed that the Steelers, who had been shut out in their only previous postseason appearance, would have to wait at least another year for their first postseason victory.

Neither team managed a score in the first half. The Steelers got two Roy Gerela field goals in the second half before the Raiders took a 7–6 lead on Kenny Stabler's 30–yard touchdown run and George Blanda's extra point late in the game.

Then the most wildly, improbable thing happened.

With time running out, Terry Bradshaw faced a fourth down 60 yards from Oakland's end zone. He scrambled around and flung a pass in the direction of John Fuqua. The pass ricocheted off defender Jack Tatum into the hands of rookie Franco Harris, who scooped it out of the air only inches from the ground and ran down the sidelines for the game–winning score.

Almost immediately, it was dubbed the Immaculate Reception.

And, almost immediately, critics claimed the Raiders had been robbed. It was, one wag suggested, the Immaculate Deception.

Well, yesterday, I watched programming on the NFL Network about the Immaculate Reception. I watched the replays that have been enhanced as much as possible by the technological advances of the last four decades.

And I have concluded that it was a legitimately completed pass.

It was, to be sure, a bizarre play, perhaps the most bizarre play I have seen in a lifetime of watching football.

It has been a source of debate for 40 years, and it probably will be a source of debate for another 40 years.

There will always be folks on either side of the issue who will never be persuaded that the other side might be right.

And that is one of the things that makes sports so special. You never know when an unforgettable moment is about to occur.

My Memory of Jack Buck

---

---

"Go crazy, folks! Go crazy!"

Jack Buck
Oct. 14, 1985

---

When I think of Jack Buck, the legendary St. Louis Cardinals radio announcer who died 10 years ago today, I think of an October day in 1985.

It was a Monday, and the Cardinals were playing my favorite baseball team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, in the National League Championship Series. It was an afternoon game, but that wasn't a problem for me in those days. I was working nights for a metro newspaper, and my regular days off were Monday and Tuesday.

The series was tied, two games to two, and I was looking forward to settling in to watch the game. I was anticipating it all the more because my best friend, Randy, had promised to drive to my apartment after his workday ended and watch the end of the game with me.

Randy was a Cardinals fan — still is, for that matter — and, although I wanted the Dodgers to win, I wanted the score to be close when Randy arrived. If the outcome was already decided when he got there, it would spoil the experience.

It could hardly have worked out any better. The score was 2–2 when he arrived, and the Cardinals were coming to bat in the bottom of the ninth. With one out and no one on base, St. Louis' switch–hitting shortstop Ozzie Smith came to the plate to face Los Angeles' right–handed ace reliever, Tom Niedenfuer.

Mind you, Smith was never a power hitter. He hit a few home runs in his career, but he had never hit a home run when batting on the left side of the plate, and I recall hearing Buck say something about that (whenever I have a choice between the TV and the radio for play by play of a game, I choose the radio) only seconds before Smith connected with Niedenfuer's pitch and drove it over the right–field wall.

I had listened to Buck on the radio many times in my life before that afternoon. Heck, I grew up in Conway, Ark., which was smack dab in the middle of Cardinals territory in those days (it may be different now, with other regional and broadcast options for baseball fans).

When I was a kid, if I wanted to listen to a baseball game on the radio, I could listen to the Cardinals — or no one. And the only televised games in those pre–cable days were NBC's games of the week on Saturday afternoons.

Also, the minor league club that was based in Little Rock — the Travelers — was part of the Cardinals farm organization. The Cardinal influence was all around me.

So I listened to the Cardinals games, and I associated Buck's voice with baseball on the radio on warm summer evenings. No other voice has ever sounded quite right to me for describing the action on a baseball field.

Buck's signature sentence when a Cardinals victory was assured was "That's a winner!" But he sounded emotionally drained after Smith's unexpected blast, and I could imagine him slumping in his seat and urging his listeners to "Go crazy, folks! Go crazy!"

I've heard old–time Dodger fans say that the baseball moment that broke their hearts was in 1951 when the Giants, after overcoming a seemingly insurmountable Dodger advantage in the standings to force a rare playoff, beat the Dodgers to claim a spot in the World Series.

That was before my time. My most painful baseball moment may have been that day in 1985 when Ozzie Smith drilled a walkoff home run to beat the Dodgers. Ultimately, the Cardinals won the league championship and went on to face the Kansas City Royals in the World Series.

But I was happy for Randy. And I was glad that we had shared that experience together. Other than the outcome, it was everything I could have wanted.

In the years ahead, we attended many Dodger–Cardinal games at Busch Stadium. And I always liked knowing that Jack Buck and I had watched the same game in the same place.

It's been many years since I went to a game in St. Louis, but the last one was when Buck was still alive and still calling games for the Cardinals.

Randy and I never took a radio with us when we went to a game so I never had the experience of listening to his play by play of a game I attended.

But I think the knowledge that Buck is no longer in the press box would make it difficult for me to feel the same about being at a game.

Confessions of a Packer Fan

---

---

I try not to mention it too often on this blog, but I am a Green Bay Packers fan.

I have been a Cheesehead since I was a child — when I lived in central Arkansas, the only TV my family had was a rather small black–and–white number that my grandparents gave us and a guy named Lombardi was on the Green Bay sideline.

Through most of my life, a statement like "I am a Green Bay Packers fan" was kind of like one of those confessions people make at 12–step meetings. But not really. I mean, such meetings usually are about some kind of addiction over which a person is powerless, like an addiction to alcohol or tobacco. Other times, they are about an addiction to some other kind of destructive behavior, like kleptomania.

In the early years of my life, being a Packer fan was rarely about gratification — although I guess a case could be made for the cumulative destructive impact on one's psyche and self–esteem from all those losing seasons.

("My name is David, and I'm a Packerholic ...")

For awhile, I wore it as a badge of honor. When I was about 12 or 13, I had a Packers jacket — designed like those letterman jackets that jocks have been wearing since the dawn of time — that I wore almost defiantly everywhere I went.

It was a small club. I had a few friends who liked the Packers, too, and most of my friends wore similar NFL jackets, but the logos on their jackets were for the winners. I tended to see most of my peers as either fair–weather fans who followed whichever team was winning (they were the ones who liked Don Shula's Dolphins or Chuck Noll's Steelers) or were susceptible to regional influences (mostly Cowboys fans).

I considered myself special because my allegiance was not based on either factor.

Green Bay must be several hundred miles from my hometown, and the Packers rarely had winning seasons when I was growing up. It's hard to make a convincing case that someone jumped on a team's bandwagon when the team in question routinely loses at least two–thirds of its games — unless the fan is a glutton for punishment, which I am not.

(At least, I don't think I am.)

But, as I got older, I started to think that being a Packer fan was something shameful so I stopped sharing it with new acquaintances, and I became selective about the old friends with whom I would discuss it. In that sense, perhaps I was sort of like an alcoholic, indulging in my addiction within a select circle of friends — or (shudder!) when I was by myself.

Most of the time, it was easier just to not say anything when I was with a group of Cowboys fans or fans of the latest powerhouse.

Drinking alone would have been far more satisfying than sitting through the Packers' often lopsided losses. Fortunately, I guess, I rarely saw a Packers game on TV in those days. They weren't winning so there was little interest in them outside their home region.

Occasionally, I might get to see them on a Sunday (if they were playing someone in my region, like the Cowboys or the Chiefs or the Cardinals when they were still in St. Louis) or in a Monday night game. But, most of the time, I was spared the pain of watching them being subjected to a severe beating — which, inevitably, they were.

In spite of it all, I remained loyal to the Packers — through all those 2–, 3– and 4–win seasons. I assured myself that things would turn around eventually. I just didn't know if I would live to see it.

But I did.

I guess all those losing seasons really conditioned me because, even after the Packers turned things around, I still kept expecting them to revert to their old ways. In my formative years — after Lombardi left Green Bay — success was fleeting. Winning seasons didn't come in bunches.

I must admit, I was often envious of the people I knew whose favorite teams were always in the playoffs. For me, if my favorite team was in the playoffs, that alone was cause for celebration. Who knew when it might happen again?

Because of that mindset, it's kind of like an out–of–body experience — or maybe an alternate reality experience — to read Richard Rothschild's suggestion in Sports Illustrated that today's Packers might be better than Lombardi's teams of the 1960s.

Well, actually, Rothschild didn't suggest it — members of the 1961 team that won the first of five NFL championships in seven years suggested it — but Rothschild made a good statistical case supporting it.

God help me, I think I'm starting to believe it.

In my experience, things started to turn around in the 1990s, when Brett Favre came to Green Bay and started leading the Packers to the playoffs on a regular basis. Before he left Green Bay, Favre set all kinds of records and took the Packers to two consecutive Super Bowls, matching Bart Starr's achievement in my childhood, but he couldn't win both.

But even with all his success, even with three consecutive MVPs in the 1990s, Favre didn't take the Packers to the dizzying heights that were reached in the 1960s. Starr is still the only quarterback to lead the Packers to two straight Super Bowl victories.

But Aaron Rodgers, Favre's successor, has the opportunity to match Starr in that category if he wins this year's Super Bowl, and the Packers appear to be talented enough to turn this decade into a repeat of the decade of Starr and Lombardi.

---

---

But who should be standing in their way this weekend but the New York Giants ... the very team that came to Lambeau Field four years ago and beat Favre in his final game in a Packer uniform, the NFC Championship game that most observers thought would propel him to his third Super Bowl.

That would have been a first for a Packer signal caller. Instead, it was the end of an era, and I am sure I wasn't the only Packer fan who worried that the team might slip back into mediocrity.

The Packers did slump to that all–too–familiar sub–.500 territory in Rodgers' first season as Green Bay's starting quarterback, but he had them back in the playoffs the next year. And he won the Super Bowl the year after that.

The NFC Championship is not on the line this weekend. It won't be the first time these teams have played each other since that game in January 2008. They've met twice, both times in Green Bay, and the Packers have won both.

But those were regular–season games. There's an appealing symmetry to the idea that Rodgers — who launched a 19–game winning streak with a lopsided victory over the Giants in December 2010 — can avenge that playoff loss Sunday.

Wanna talk symmetry? The Giants were the first team the Packers of the 1960s beat in an NFL championship game back in December 1961. On Sunday afternoon, they will be back at Lambeau Field.

In spite of myself, I'm starting to think pro football history might be about to repeat itself.

A Very Special Moment

---

---

The start of the baseball playoffs is a special time for a baseball fan — no matter which teams are playing.

It's been particularly special for fans in north Texas the last couple of years because the Texas Rangers have been participants in the postseason, advancing to their first–ever World Series last year.

But what happened at The Ballpark in Arlington yesterday was extraordinary, touching beyond words.

Cooper Stone, the young son of the firefighter who fell to his death at The Ballpark in July, threw out the first pitch with his mother and Nolan Ryan watching on.

Being in the playoffs is becoming something of a regular thing for the Rangers — at least for the last couple of years — and a lot of people around here hope that appearing in the World Series is going to become a habit as well.

But no one around here wants to repeat what happened on that evening nearly three months ago when Cooper's dad, Shannon Stone, tumbled headfirst over the railing.

It was a traumatic moment for a lot of people around here, whether they follow the Rangers, whether they care about sports, whether they saw it happen. I haven't heard it mentioned much lately, but it never seems to be far from anyone's thoughts.

Surely, that night back in July when his father fell to his death was a traumatic one for Cooper. My understanding is that yesterday was the first time he has been at The Ballpark since that tragic night, and his mother spoke of the occasion as almost an act of closure, which, I suppose, it was.

It was also an act of closure for the people who live in this area. I didn't see Cooper's pitch, but I heard from many people who did — and almost all spoke of the healing effect it had on them.

If the Rangers return to the World Series, I hope they will invite Cooper and his mother to return to The Ballpark. But that might be easier said than done. The Rangers, who were almost never shut out at home this season, lost their divisional series opener with Tampa Bay, 9–0.

A Must-Win for Mavs?

I was having an e–mail conversation with a friend of mine shortly before the Dallas–Miami game on Sunday.

I asked my friend if he thought Dallas would win the game. He wasn't sure, but he did say he believed the winner of the game would go on to win the series — and, hence, the NBA title.

I agreed with him — but, I will admit, it was a pretty safe bet. The teams split the first two games, which meant the series had become a best–of–five. The winner would only need to win two of the remaining four games while the loser would need to win three.

While I don't know the exact numbers, I think the finalists have split the first two games about 40% of the time since the NBA introduced its current schedule in the finals — the first two games played at one site, followed by three games at the other site, followed by the last two games at the original site — about 25 years ago.

By the time the game tipped off on Sunday night, I had heard from numerous sports writers — in both interviews and columns — that the winner of the third game had always gone on to win the whole thing.

That must mean that history is on the side of the Miami Heat, who held on for a two–point win.

Sean Deveney of The Sporting News sums it up for many when he says Miami is "clearly ... the much better team."

I would admit that Miami has been the better team in the first three games. But much better? Clearly better? I don't think so.

As I have conceded on many occasions, I am hardly an expert on the NBA. I am, at best, a casual observer. I haven't followed the NBA closely since I was a kid. I usually don't get interested in the NBA until it reaches this point in the playoffs.

Nevertheless, there are some things that I know — and that I will continue to believe until I am proven wrong.

One is that, although home court/field is an advantage in the early going, by the time you reach this stage of the playoffs, home means little, if anything, beyond being able to sleep in one's own bed.

For a true champion in any sport, a game is played within the confines of the playing surface, and whatever is happening outside those boundaries is separate from what is taking place within them.

Oh, sure, I suppose some of the younger, inexperienced players may be affected by opposing fans' efforts to distract them, but not championship–caliber veterans.

I think my point has been proven in the first three games of this series. The home team won the first game; the visiting team has won the last two.

And the last two games were decided by two points each. One was a great comeback (although, when compared to the epic comeback against Oklahoma City in the previous round, Dallas' come–from–behind victory in Game 2 wasn't as impressive — at least not numerically).

That doesn't necessarily suggest that anyone has dominated things yet.

Actually, it reminds me more of this year's Triple Crown in horse racing. The winner of the Kentucky Derby had to come from way behind to win that race, then almost did the same thing but came up just short in the Preakness a couple of weeks ago. Now, the horses will run in Saturday's Belmont Stakes, which is the longest of the three races.

The winner of the Derby has proven to be the fastest horse at the end of the first two races. His speed and endurance could well pay off in Saturday's Belmont when his rivals start to fade.

After three games of the NBA Finals, you knew that someone was going to have two wins — at least. Regardless of what led up to them, the final margins suggest that the teams were competitive at the end — and that suggests that the rest of the games in this series, however many that turns out to be, will be entertaining.

That makes me believe that tonight's game is not a must–win for the Mavericks — although a loss will certainly make things much more difficult for them.

It is an important game, though. If I were you, I'd watch.

Will Third Time Be the Charm for Big D?

---

---

It's been a long time since a professional sports championship came to Dallas.

Ironically, that championship was won in hockey.

This is a city that, for decades, was accustomed to being a legitimate factor in championship conversations. More than that, it is part of a state that has long been accustomed to being a factor in such discussions.

Usually, it has been in the context of football — but it has been nearly 15 years since the Cowboys played in a Super Bowl.

For that matter, Dallas as a city has been away from the national sports radar through most of the still nascent 21st century.

Sports supremacy has been tantalizingly close in recent months, though.

The Texas Rangers have been playing baseball around here for 40 years, and they brought a World Series to these parts for the first time last October. They didn't win it, but they brought it here, and they gave local fans a taste of what it is like to host the Fall Classic.

Most sports fans around here might not have noticed, however, if the Dallas Cowboys had lived up to their preseason hype. When the season began, local fans knew that the Super Bowl would be played in the Cowboys' new stadium, and many believed the Cowboys were practically a lock to become the first team from the host city to actually play in a Super Bowl.

But the Cowboys stumbled out of the gate and never came close to competing for a playoff spot. The Green Bay Packers won the Super Bowl as the NFC's representative.

Now, it is the Mavericks' turn — that's Dallas' NBA franchise — to try to do what the others could not.

They dispatched the Oklahoma City Thunder, four games to one, in the Western Conference finals, and they await the winner of the Chicago–Miami series.

No one knows how long the Mavericks will have to wait on that one.

Miami can finish off Chicago with a single win. Chicago needs three straight wins to turn back Miami.

If the series goes seven games, Dallas will have a week to prepare for its next foe. If the Miami–Chicago series is completed tonight or Saturday, the championship series will start on Monday.

Folks around here don't seem to care when the dance begins. All that matters is that the dance can't be held without them.

And my guess is that a line is going to start forming for tickets soon, if it hasn't already. They go on sale Saturday morning. The latest weather forecast calls for daily highs in the 90s, but I have no doubt that people will be camping out for the next couple of nights.

There is clearly a sense in this city that destiny is beckoning.

But the thing is, people around here always feel that way when the local team is playing for a title. They felt that way when the Stars won the Stanley Cup in 1999 — even though most of the Stars' "fans" that year probably were more appropriately bandwagon jumpers.

They felt that way when the Rangers faced the San Francisco Giants in the World Series last year. (Much was made locally of the "long–suffering fans" who had waited 40 years for a world championship, but I recall little being said of the long–suffering Giants fans, who had been waiting almost 20 years longer for a world title.)

That probably isn't uniquely Texan. The fans of every team in every sport believe they are entitled to a championship — until, at some point, their teams are eliminated and they must face the truth that most fans must accept at some point.

The fans around here aren't ready to accept that truth. Nor is it necessary for them to do so.

Oh, sure, there are some naysayers. Some say the Mavericks won't be able to handle the Miami Heat, their most likely foe.

And that may be true.

But that doesn't really matter right now.

The Promised Land?

---

---

Here in Dallas, Texas, there is a sense of inevitability settling in after last night's astonishing come–from–behind triumph over Oklahoma City in the NBA Western Conference finals.

The Christian Science Monitor called it "one of the most jaw–dropping comebacks in NBA history."

That may be true. I've seen some pretty amazing comebacks in my life, but nothing to compare with what happened about 200 miles north of here last night.

I'm not an NBA fan, but I will admit that I have been watching more lately. However, I had given the game up for lost. I left my TV on and went about some other things in my apartment. I could monitor the game, but, having conceded defeat, I didn't feel I needed to sit and watch it.

I changed my mind a few minutes later.

Down by 15 points with about five minutes to play, the Mavericks doggedly chipped away at the upstarts from OKC, forced the game into overtime and, as Eddie Sefko writes in the Dallas Morning News, never trailed in overtime (after never leading during regulation).

When the Mavericks returned to Dallas early this morning, a couple hundred people were on hand to meet them.

Today the giddiness and disbelief from last night seems to be morphing into supreme confidence, even cockiness. Sure, I heard one man say, there have been teams that have come back from a 3–1 deficit but not many.

Not many, but some. To pull that one off, it seems to me that a team has to be loaded with playoff veterans with the discipline and the concentration to remain focused on the task at hand.

I have my doubts that Oklahoma City can do that.

But as my friend who used to cover horse racing during our mutual Arkansas Gazette days like to say, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

It could happen. It isn't likely, but it could happen.

However, I will assume that the Mavericks — who would have to lose at home not once but twice for the Thunder to leapfrog them into the NBA Finals — will face either Miami or Chicago for the NBA title.

That would mean that the Dallas area will have hosted

• the World Series


• the Super Bowl and


• the NBA Finals

within a single calendar year.

As far as I know, that would be a first.

Mind you, I'm not talking about cities that had teams that participated in three major professional sports championships within a calendar year.

(I think New York came close to that when the Jets played in the Super Bowl in January 1969, the Mets played in the World Series that autumn and the Knicks played in the NBA Finals in the spring of 1970. Technically, that exceeded a calendar year, but New York did win all three.)

The site of the Super Bowl is decided years ahead of time. It has been played annually for 45 years, and, while it is not the NFL's explicit policy to prohibit cities without NFL teams from hosting Super Bowls, no city without an NFL franchise has ever hosted one.

And no host city's team has ever played in one.

For awhile, folks around here figured the Cowboys would be the team to change that. It didn't happen. Instead, two of the Cowboys' old postseason rivals met in the Super Bowl in February.

But it was played here in Dallas. In October, the Texas Rangers brought the World Series here for the first time — and now it appears the NBA Finals will be played here, too.

I think that's a first.

When the Bucks Didn't Stop

---

---

With the exception of the folks who live there, most people don't seem to be paying much attention to the 40th anniversary of Milwaukee's only NBA championship.

But it's worth thinking about as the NBA careens toward what would have been thought to be an unlikely championship series when the season began — no matter what the pairing may eventually turn out to be.

Later today, the Dallas Mavericks, who have had all week to savor a four–game sweep of the two–time defending champion Lakers in the second round, will learn whether they will face Oklahoma City (formerly the Seattle SuperSonics) or Memphis (originally a 1995 expansion team) in the Western finals.

Those three franchises have precisely one title between them — and, if Memphis defeats Oklahoma City today, it will be certain that the representative of the Lakers' conference will be seeking its first league championship.

The same can't be said of the championship series in the East that is slated to begin tonight after the Oklahoma City–Memphis game concludes. Both of the teams in that series — Miami and Chicago — have won NBA titles. Miami beat Dallas five years ago, and, as for Chicago, well, surely you remember the Bulls' dominance of the 1990s.

(I don't really have to recite the story of Michael Jordan for you, do I?)

I'm not a devoted follower of the NBA. In fact, I seldom get interested in professional basketball until things get to this stage. So I could be all wrong about this. But my guess is that the winner of the East is going to be the favorite heading into the championship series, no matter who wins the West.

To mildly misquote a phrase from Bob Dylan, though, I would not feel so overwhelmed. There might be some good karma for the winner of the West — especially if it turns out to be Dallas.

Forty years ago this spring, the Milwaukee Bucks (who had only been in existence for three years) won their first and only NBA title.

Many things were different then. The NBA, like all professional sports leagues, was much smaller; so, too, was its playoff field.

Kareem Abdul–Jabbar was on that Milwaukee team. But, although practically no one ever mentions it anymore, that wasn't his name at the time.

In the 1970–1971 season, he had not yet converted to Islam — and he was still known by the name he played under at UCLA — Lew Alcindor. He was definitely a dominant player, just as he had been in college, and he won Rookie of the Year the season before when he led the Bucks to a 29–win turnaround (the most impressive in league history to that point) and nearly took them to the NBA Finals.

The Bucks won it all the following season, but I always felt they did so not because of Alcindor but because they acquired Oscar Robertson — and took some of the pressure off Alcindor.

I was in elementary school that spring. There were few hockey or basketball teams in my part of the country in those days. Baseball (particularly the St. Louis Cardinals) usually grabbed everyone's attention until the football teams began their conditioning drills for the fall.

That spring, though, all eyes in my little town were on the NBA and Lew Alcindor. My memory of that time is that he drew most of the attention — and that was as it should be, I suppose. He did win the MVP award for the championship series.

But what so many people forget is how Robertson — long before the three–point shot — piled up more than 20 points in the first half of Game 4 and staked Milwaukee to a lead over Baltimore that it never relinquished.

Afterward, the Milwaukee coach said Robertson had been "unbelievable" on that day, and he had been.

---

---

No one could have matched Willis Reed's gutsy performance in Game 7 of the previous year's final series — but Robertson came close, clearly finishing off the Bullets that day.

The game, as I remember, was all but over by halftime. The second half was a mere formality.

Remember what I said about that karma stuff and the Dallas Mavericks? Well, I was thinking about the fact that, 40 years ago, the Bucks had to beat the Lakers to get to the NBA Finals.

Dallas has already topped the '71 Bucks with its victory over L.A. The Mavericks swept the Lakers in four games; the Bucks went 4–1 against the Lakers (but they did have to face Wilt Chamberlain).

In those days, the Lakers hadn't won an NBA title since long before they left Minneapolis in the early 1960s. They were considered competitive but hardly formidable, always a bridesmaid but never a bride.

They certainly didn't carry the aura of a two–time defending champion.

Perhaps their victory over the Lakers will propel the Mavs to their first NBA title — just as it did for the Bucks 40 years ago.

The First Wild Card to Win It All

---

---

It might have been appropriate if the New York Jets had won the AFC championship on Sunday.

Why? Well, because it was 30 years ago today that a wild card team first won a Super Bowl.

If the Jets had beaten the Steelers on Sunday, the Super Bowl would have been played between two wild–card teams. I don't think that has ever happened before.

Four other wild–card teams have won Super Bowls since the Raiders did it 30 years ago, and three of them have done so since the dawn of the 21st century.

But, even in 1980, wild cards weren't new to pro football. They had been part of the playoff landscape for a decade by the time the Oakland Raiders defeated the Philadelphia Eagles in New Orleans on Jan. 25, 1981. And a wild card made it to the Super Bowl for the first time five years later.

But until this day 30 years ago, no wild card team had ever won a Super Bowl. The Dallas Cowboys came close back in Super Bowl X (which was also played in New Orleans), but they eventually lost to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

What seemed to surprise people the most about the Super Bowl that was played 30 years ago today was not necessarily the fact that the wild card won it — although that was surprising.

It was the relative ease with which the Raiders cruised to a 14–0 lead at the end of the first quarter — and ultimately prevailed, 27–10. When you consider who they were playing, that was positively stunning.

The Eagles had been one of the NFL's elite teams in the 1980 season, racing to an 11–1 start. Ron Jaworski was the top–ranked quarterback in the NFC. The Eagle defense kept all its opponents from scoring more than 24 points (and held most of their foes under 20) until Dallas scored 35 against Philly on the final day of the regular season.

The Raiders, on the other hand, caught just about everyone by surprise. They had made a lot of changes during the offseason, and I think most observers just wanted to wait and see how all the new parts would function together. They got off to kind of a sluggish start (2–3) and had to deal with the loss of their starting quarterback to a broken leg, but then Jim Plunkett came in, the Raiders won six in a row, and Oakland actually finished tied with San Diego atop their division.

But San Diego was awarded the division crown on a tiebreaker — which meant that, when the teams played for the AFC title, the game was played in San Diego. When they played there in the second week of the season, the Raiders lost in overtime. When the AFC title was on the line, however, Oakland surged to a 21–7 lead in the first quarter and never looked back.

It was more of the same two weeks later when the Raiders and Eagles faced each other in the Super Bowl.

The Eagles came into the game favored by three points. That surprised me because I really felt that most people believed the Eagles would win by a wider margin.

But that, of course, was not what happened.

When the game was over, everyone praised the Raiders' performance — and the Raiders did deserve that praise — but I recall less attention being given to what may well have been Jaworski's worst performance as a pro.

It was certainly his worst performance on a postseason stage. He completed fewer than half of his passes and was intercepted three times.

And by the time he threw his only touchdown pass in a Super Bowl, the Raiders had built a 24–3 fourth–quarter lead.

It was the greatest defeat, I have no doubt, of Jaworski's career.

But the flip side was that it must have been the pinnacles of the careers of the many castoffs whose careers were revived by Al Davis. The Raiders' bombastic owner picked up guys like Plunkett, Kenny King, John Matuszak and many others who asked only to be given a chance to prove that they could still contribute.

Plunkett threw three touchdown passes — two to Cliff Branch and one to King that covered 80 yards, a record that still stands. He was named the game's MVP.

What became of the team that cut Plunkett earlier in 1980? Well, I guess you could say they did all right.

That would be the San Francisco 49ers, An up–and–coming quarterback named Joe Montana emerged as their quarterback in 1980 and wound up taking San Francisco to — and winning — four Super Bowls in the '80s — starting the next year.

But that's another story.

The 12th Man

Some 24 hours ago, I wrote that the best NFL playoff games this weekend would be played yesterday.

I still feel that was true, and that won't change, even if today's games turn out to be classic cliffhangers.

That Pittsburgh–Baltimore game was a real cliffhanger, wasn't it? And, while the Green Bay–Atlanta game didn't turn out to be close, I think it was a real milestone in the relationship between Green Bay Packer fans and Aaron Rodgers.

When his career is over, I believe football historians will look back on the events of Jan. 15, 2011, and say that was when he really began to assume the role of elite NFL quarterback.

As I have mentioned here frequently, I have been a Green Bay Packers fan since I was a child collecting football cards, and Vince Lombardi was coaching the team.

In hindsight, I suppose I wasn't so different from those who came of age as football fans some five years later, when Miami was the king of the hill. Or a few years later, when the Pittsburgh Steelers were dominating. Or the following decade, when the dynasty was in San Francisco.

And I guess that many of today's young NFL fans have been conditioned to think of the New England Patriots as the modern dynasty — even though it has been a few years since they won it all.

There have been lots of popular teams over the years. Usually, they have been led by the greatest quarterbacks of their era.

And frequently — not always but often — those quarterbacks have worn number 12.

As I watched Rodgers pick apart Atlanta last night, I couldn't help thinking of the great players I remember watching who wore that number.

Sure, number 4 was unique, like Brett Favre, but 12 has always signified a certain steadfastness to me. Roger Staubach wore that number. So did Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw and Bob Griese and Jim Kelly. The Patriots' fans know Tom Brady wears number 12.

That number almost seems magical to a football fan. Twelve, of course, is only one more than the number of players on each side in a football game. Consequently, there is a tendency to speak of one's home fans as the "12th man" in recognition of their efforts to boost their team's morale.

It's a tradition that goes back nearly 90 years, and it originated at Texas A&M. Various NFL teams have used it over the years, but most don't use it anymore. They were discouraged primarily because A&M owns the trademark on the phrase, and they were concerned about litigation.

Ironically, two teams who will meet today — the Chicago Bears and the Seattle Seahawks — were among those who used it in the past and still use it — or a variation — today.

The Seahawks continue to use it. They settled out of court with A&M, and, if next week's NFC championship game is played in Seattle, you will undoubtedly hear references to Seattle's "12th man."

The Bears, on the other hand, stopped referring to their fans as the "12th man." They call their fans the "Fourth Phase." The logic is that the first three phases of football are offense, defense and special teams.

It's kinda the same thing. Anyway, if you hear "Fourth Phase" mentioned this afternoon, that's the background — in a nutshell.

There was a time, I have been told, when the Packers, like several other NFL franchises, used the "12th Man" reference. It was kind of the hot football–related phrase for awhile, sort of like "friendly confines" in baseball.

And I guess that was OK by Packer fans. Since the Lombardi days, it always seemed to Packer fans that number 12 was worn either by backups or starters who never seemed to live up to their hype. Bart Starr wore number 15, then a couple of decades went by before Favre arrived.

They are the only two quarterbacks to lead the Packers to the brink of a Super Bowl. There have been other quarterbacks who came to Green Bay and much was expected from them — guys like Lynn Dickey and Don Majkowski come to mind, but there were others. They all fell short. I guess there was a considerable gap between the potential and the reality.

But that will change next Sunday. There is no such gap with Rodgers.

The Packers will be led this time by an honest–to–god "12th Man" — and he seems to be at the top of his game.

It ought to be fun.

Weekend's Best Games Set for Today

It seems to be this way every year.

Once we get past the wild–card playoff weekend and the top two seeds in each conference rejoin the rest of the postseason field for divisional playoff weekend, there is always one game — or one day — that stands out.

Last year, the high point on divisional playoff weekend — at least before the weekend began — probably was the Dallas–Minnesota game. But I guess Dallas didn't show up that day. Minnesota rolled to a 34–3 victory.

The year before, it seems to me the marquee matchup was Philadelphia against the defending Super Bowl champion New York Giants. In January 2008, there were two big attractions, one in each league — Colts–Chargers in the AFC, Cowboys and Giants in the NFC. A year earlier, it was the Colts–Ravens.

Sometimes these games lived up to grand expectations and produced Super Bowl champions or runners–up. Other times, the winners didn't amount to much. They just went on and collapsed in the next round.

But, on that second weekend of the playoffs, those games stood out from the rest.

This year, I see two games on divisional playoff weekend that look like they have the potential to produce Super Bowl teams — and they're both today.

Neither matchup on today's schedule holds any surprises for either participant. The Ravens and Steelers will be meeting for the third time. The Packers and Falcons will be meeting for the second time. All three of those games were decided by a single score.

• Baltimore (13-4) at Pittsburgh (12-4), 3:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS.
  
  There are so many variables in this game.
  
  Peter King of Sports Illustrated thinks this one could come down to the kickers, and he makes a good point. He observes that five of the last seven games between these two teams have been decided by a field goal, but Heinz Field in Pittsburgh is "a Bermuda Triangle for kickers."
  
  Clearly, something has gotta give.
  
  This is a pretty heated rivalry — in its current incarnation — but a lot of people seem to forget that this rivalry is a lot older than the decade or so the Ravens have been competing.
  
  Before the Ravens played in Baltimore, they were called the Cleveland Browns. That team that's been playing in Cleveland lately and calling itself the Browns? It's a substitute, not the original.
  
  I guess I could write an entire article — or two or three — on how absurd I think it was for the NFL to shift an entire franchise from a city only to award it a new one a few years later — with the same name and uniform and everything.
  
  But, in the end, the NFL really had no choice, did it? Owner Art Modell wanted to relocate the Browns to Baltimore. Preventing him from doing so would amount to restricting free enterprise, wouldn't it?
  
  Now, I was always a little peeved about how the Colts slithered away in the dead of night, leaving football fans in Baltimore high and dry. I felt those fans deserved a team, but I never wanted Baltimore to be given another city's team in compensation.
  
  In the interest of fairness (as well as perhaps trying to avoid a repeat of the Colts episode), giving the football fans in Cleveland a new team to replace the one it had lost was the only thing the NFL could do, I guess.
  
  And it is worth remembering that the NFL didn't "take away" Cleveland's franchise, either. That was Modell's doing.
  
  Anyway, once the NFL restored a franchise to Cleveland, the rivalry was renewed. But it's never really been what it was. I guess the folks in the two cities have remained rivals; they're only a couple of hours apart, anyway. But they have met 24 times since a team calling itself the Browns returned to the city, and the Steelers have won all by four, many by ridiculous margins.
  
  It's been a different story against Baltimore. The teams split their two games this season. The visiting team won both games, and the winning margin in both instances was three points.
  
  They split their games last year, too, and Pittsburgh swept the season series in 2008. The Steelers made it 3–0 against the Ravens that year when they beat Baltimore for the AFC title.
  
  But the two teams split their games in 2007, and the Ravens swept the Steelers in 2006. The teams split their series in 2005, 2004 and 2003.
  
  It is one of the most competitive rivalries in the modern NFL. Sometimes the games have gone into overtime; often, they have been decided by a single score.
  
  Based on the outcomes of the two regularly scheduled games this season, it is reasonable to think that today's rubber match will be decided by a single score as well.
  
  I'm sure that would be just fine for the Ravens, who have won six in a row since they lost to Pittsburgh at home in early December and would no doubt like to repeat their October victory in Pittsburgh.
  
  And, if the season pattern is duplicated this afternoon, the visiting team will beat the home team by a field goal. But, on what figures to be a windy and snowy afternoon, the kickers for both teams might be struggling.
  
  Can the Ravens do it?
  
  Well, let's see.
  
  When Baltimore has the ball: The Ravens were 14th in the NFL in rushing yards and 17th in passing yards, which might give you an idea of their strategy for acquiring yardage, but they might shift gears when they're in scoring range. Baltimore was more effective scoring through the air than on the ground this season.
  
  Consequently, you might see Ray Price pounding away in the middle of the field, but you might see Joe Flacco throwing to Anquan Boldin, Derrick Mason or Todd Heap whenever the Ravens are in the red zone.
  
  In fact, JJ Cooper over at Fanhouse writes that pressuring Flacco is the key for Pittsburgh today. Cooper observes that the Steelers dramatically reduced Flacco's yards–per–pass average "when the Steelers got a man into Flacco's face" in those two earlier games.
  
  Is it necessary for the Steelers to sack Flacco a lot? I don't think so. It's important for the Ravens to protect their quarterback, of course, On average, he was only sacked twice per game this season. And it could only help Pittsburgh's cause if Flacco is sacked several times.
  
  But the pressure alone seems sufficient to me.
  
  When the Steelers weren't putting pressure on the Ravens, Cooper points out, they were getting nearly 10 yards per pass. And when your air defense is that vulnerable, you may try to compensate by redeploying players who ordinarily would be guarding against the run.
  
  That's when Price, a solid but not always spectacular runner, could be quite dangerous.
  
  As far as some people are concerned, Baltimore's offense holds the key to the game. Joe Starkey of the Pittsburgh Tribune–Review points out that the Ravens have long had a reputation for a great defense, but their Super Bowl dreams in the last 10 years have been thwarted by their offense.
  
  Part of their problem is turnovers, but that is nothing new. Football coaches have worried about turnovers from the beginning, and the Ravens . But it is especially crucial against the Steelers. Only New England was better at the takeaway/giveaway differential this season
  
  It's going to be challenging for Dick LeBeau, Pittsburgh's defensive coordinator.
  
  When Pittsburgh has the ball: I think the key for the Steelers is Ben Roethlisberger. He was completing his suspension when Baltimore came to Pittsburgh and pulled out a come–from–behind victory.
  
  Big Ben has a six–game winning streak against Baltimore, and he is 8–2 against the Ravens all time. That tends to make a guy confident.
  
  The Ravens' winning streak, which dates back to Big Ben's last win over them, should give them some confidence, too. But it is critical for them to make some defensive statements — preferably early — if only to provide some cushion against whatever offensive collapse may be in store.
  
  They might be able to do it. Linebacker Ray Lewis was fifth in the NFL in tackles. Linebacker Terrell Suggs was tied for 10th in sacks. Safety Ed Reed led the NFL in interceptions.
  
  If you like defense, I think you'll like this game. These two teams were in the top 10 in the NFL in preventing opposing offenses from accumulating yards — and they were #1 (Pittsburgh) and #3 (Baltimore) in preventing opponents from scoring.
  
  Look for a low–scoring game, and don't be surprised if it is decided by ... a field goal.


• Green Bay (11–6) at Atlanta (13–3), 7 p.m. (Central) on Fox.
  
  The Falcons have had a great season. They've won nine of their last 10 games, and that loss came two days after Christmas, when Atlanta's postseason position was more or less assured.
  
  The Falcons also have the knowledge that they beat the Packers on their home field at the end of November, 20–17.
  
  But I'm inclined to think Green Bay is going to win this one.
  
  I've heard a lot of talk about Atlanta's Matt Ryan and Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers, how they are the NFC's quarterbacks of the near future, this generation's elite.
  
  In today's game, I have heard, both quarterbacks are looking to break through that playoff barrier and join the list of quarterbacks who have been successful in the postseason. This game will be the "next step"
  
  But I would argue that Rodgers has already achieved that. Actually, he did just about everything but win in his epic postseason debut last year against the Arizona Cardinals. Last week, he finally got postseason victory #1 under his belt when the Packers defeated the Eagles.
  
  It could also be argued that the Packers as a team have been in playoff mode since before Christmas, when every game became a must–win for them just to make it to the playoffs. The Packers are past the jitters stage.
  
  The Falcons, on the other hand, are coming in following a bye week. A bye week can be a good thing if a roster is filled with older players, some of whom may be banged up and need a little time to heal. But it can be a bad thing if a team is young and resilient — and Atlanta's three offensive stars (Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White) are under 30.
  
  I'm not sure a week off helps these guys. Staying in their routine, remaining active and in their rhythm is probably what they need.
  
  If they were rookies, a week off might help. A rookie can get pretty tired when a 16–game season is wrapping up, and a week off can be just what he needs. But Atlanta's offensive trio are all past their rookie years.
  
  I wonder if the week off won't hurt Atlanta, at least in the early stages.
  
  If there is one thing that was clear from playing Green Bay this season, it was that you don't want to spot them a couple of scores. The Packers' defense was second only to the Steelers in preventing opponents from scoring, Clay Matthews was third in the NFL in sacks. Tramon Williams was tied for third in interceptions.
  
  Green Bay's defense will pose a challenge for Ryan as he looks for his first postseason win.
  
  The objective will be a little different for Rodgers. In fact, I look at this as Part 2 of his attempt to be fully embraced in Packer lore as Brett Favre's successor.
  
  Last week was Part 1, and it really called upon Rodgers to accomplish two things that Favre could never do in his career in Green Bay — beat Michael Vick in the playoffs and beat the Eagles in the playoffs. Those things he did.
  
  Tonight, he will be trying to avenge a playoff loss to the Falcons in Green Bay from January 2003.
  
  On that night, the Packers entered the game with a perfect record at home for the season, and Green Bay was a perfect 11–0 all time in home playoff games. But Vick and the Falcons prevailed in the snow.
  
  Rodgers can turn the tables on Atlanta and go his predecessor one better, in a sense, by winning tonight. The Falcons aren't unbeaten at home, but they're close enough (7–1). The Packers, meanwhile, are 3–5 on the road (well, 4–5 now, I guess, since last week's win was on the road).
  
  Based mostly on that — and the fact that the Falcons beat Green Bay in Atlanta earlier in the season (although the Packers came closer than anyone other than New Orleans in the waning days of the season) to winning at the Georgia Dome — the Packers come into tonight's game as the underdog.
  
  But remember ...
  
  Rodgers was the third-best QB in NFL this year, and Greg Jennings was fourth in the NFL in receiving yards. The Green Bay defense was one of the NFL's best.
  
  Paul Newberry of the Associated Press says the Falcons are hoping to prove themselves.
  
  By overcoming the Giants, Bears and Eagles in succession, the Packers have already proven themselves.Rodgers certainly has. Now he needs to make a statement.
  
  And I think he will do that tonight. My prediction — Green Bay 24, Atlanta 14.

Incidentally, if the playoff games get out of hand, there are some good movies on Turner Classic Movies.