Sports Feeling the Budgetary Pinch

It used to be that attending a professional or college sports event was a way to escape the troubles of life.

But the recession is having an impact on that as well.

Sports teams still need to have a certain number of players to fill out their rosters, and they need a head coach (or manager, as such a person is called in baseball) and assistant coaches. How large a given team's front–office staff happens to be depends, I suppose, on the owner and his/her organizational needs. But, having said that, I must add that I have heard no reports about job cuts by sports teams.

However, there are other indications that sports teams are under mounting financial pressure.

For example, there is an interesting article by radio show host Clark Howard at CNN.com, in which he reports on the bargain prices fans can get for tickets to sports events these days.

I've been a sports fan all my life. I used to drive to St. Louis every year to go to Cardinals games with my best friend from high school, who moved up there more than 20 years ago. I've been to many college football games, as well as a few pro football games, but I would be hard pressed to recall the last time I went to a sports event. And a big part of the reason was the price of tickets.

Not so long ago, the big story in sports was how ticket prices continued to go up in every sport. Fans complained about it but, apparently, continued to fork over increasingly high prices for tickets — as well as escalating prices for food and drinks and souvenirs.

Howard observes the deals being offered on tickets these days and speculates that the next phase will be "real labor strife in the professional leagues," which he suggests could lead to lockdowns in professional sports.

"Sports figures are entertainers," he writes, making an important point. Most athletes work hard during the offseason, as well as during the regular season, but they are entertainers, the same as rock musicians performing in concerts or actors whose portrayals — in person or on the silver screen — have been bringing in millions of dollars in revenue every year.

These days, if people are having to choose between buying tickets to a baseball game or putting food on the table, it's not hard to guess which one most people are going to choose. If they absolutely have to see the game, most people will watch it on TV and have a hot dog and a beer at home instead of driving to the ballpark, paying to park their cars and then paying for concessions on top of paying for tickets.

For many people, the choices are no longer the easy ones like the one I just described. These days, many people are having to choose between whether to continue paying the mortgage or continue paying for their COBRA health insurance benefits. That's a tougher choice, but many people will opt to make sure there is a roof over their heads and gamble that their good health will continue.

If nothing else, facing choices like that forces people to prioritize. And anything that qualifies as entertainment is regarded as a luxury — one that many people feel they cannot afford.

Howard concedes that viewing professional athletes as entertainers may not be a popular opinion, but "I think that as entertainers they should be able to make whatever the market will bear. That market is going to bear a lot less, and those entertainers are going to make less moving forward. But it also means that so many professional teams that have been priced out of your league are now going to be affordable again for the ordinary fan to go see."

If Howard is right, what will that mean in the ongoing tug-of-war between sports and steroids? Players like Alex Rodriguez have high-salary, guaranteed contracts, but what about the lesser talents who will face more and more pressure just to be able to win a spot on the roster? Will there be even more temptation to use steroids as budgets get squeezed tighter and tighter?

I'm inclined to think that there will be. It's another example of how neglect is catching up with us, and there is a high price to be paid for it. But it's a price that will have to be paid in ways that don't depend raising rates at the turnstiles.

The fans can no longer afford it.

Sports and Drugs — An Unending Story

The recent revelations of Alex Rodriguez's steroids use in 2003 have prompted me to revisit the issue of drugs and sports.

I was particularly struck by an article that ran in Sports Illustrated nearly a year ago, when Brett Favre's "retirement" from pro football was on the cover.

The article was written by Jack McCallum, and it essentially told readers not to blame sports for the prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs.

"We are a juiced nation," he wrote, making the point that there is a lot of money to be made. McCallum went on to quote Dr. Mark Gordon, a member of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, who said a 2004 study indicated that more than $1 billion was spent annually on legal human growth hormones (HGH). "And it's safe to assume it's gone up in the last four years," Gordon told McCallum.

It's hard to argue with some of McCallum's conclusions about steroids use in other segments of society — Hollywood, for example, where a plastic surgeon told McCallum, "If you're an actor in Hollywood and you're over 40, you are doing HGH. Period. Why wouldn't you? It makes your skin look better, your hair, your fingernails, everything."

McCallum wrote that "steroids are all over the culture," and I'm sure that is true. And surveys suggest that the lure of the good looks that steroids can produce is more enticing to young people than the desire to excel in sports. I was a teenager once myself, and, while I was never inclined to play football in high school, I did wish I possessed the sexy body that I believed the girls wanted. If steroids had been around in those days, I might have been tempted to take that shortcut if I had believed that it would mean I could have any girl I wanted.

But medical science is providing more and more evidence that steroids use can have deadly consequences — whether the objective was to be more sexually appealing or to be the next Babe Ruth.

Peer pressure isn't just tough on adolescents, who tend to think they are indestructible, anyway. Adults are subject to even more pressure — to keep up with others, to constantly compare themselves and their accomplishments to others.

No one likes to get older. But it's a natural part of life. Some steroids have a legitimate role to play — but that's a decision for a qualified physician to make, in relation to recovery from an injury. The unauthorized use of steroids, whether administered by a coach or a teammate or the athlete in question, needs to be stopped.

Sports boards and organizations need to focus their efforts on cracking down on this, even if means toppling all the Alex Rodriguezes from the pedestals on which they are perched. Baseball is paying for two decades of neglect. The other sports need to follow its lead and put the well being of their athletes ahead of trophies and revenue.

But even if the subject of steroids is adequately dealt with, sports still will need to be diligent about responding to the presence of anything that gives even a subtle hint of the existence of cheating.

It's a problem with no ultimate resolution, a story without an end.

Bowler Wins First PBA Title

I'm a fan of the TV show "M*A*S*H." I can't say that I remember every episode or every line of dialogue, but, every once in awhile, I remember a line from that show that seems to be appropriate for the occasion.

Yesterday, a bowler named John Nolen won his first PBA event, the USBC Masters in Las Vegas.

When I read this item of news, I remembered a line delivered by the "Hot Lips" Houlihan character in a "M*A*S*H" episode. I may have the episode wrong, but it seems to me that, in this episode, nearly everyone in the camp was down with the flu so Hot Lips and Hawkeye had to handle all the necessary tasks themselves — including all the surgery on the wounded who were brought in.

Hot Lips, of course, was a nurse. She wasn't a surgeon. She had medical training, but she wasn't a surgeon. So, as I recall, when Hawkeye put her in charge of a fairly routine surgical procedure, she said to him, "I've never done this before."

And Hawkeye, who never seemed to be at a loss for words, replied, "I'll bet you can't remember the first time you said that!"

Most of us probably can't remember the first time we said "I've never done this before," but I'd be willing to bet that Nolen, 29, will remember winning his first PBA title.

"This means everything to me," Nolen said. It also means a $60,000 prize and a two-year PBA Tour exemption.

Perhaps Hot Lips' remark had more relevance than I first thought. Later in the series, fans learned she was an accomplished bowler whose skill saved the 4077th in a bowling competition with another outfit that had reeled off an impressive streak of wins in just about everything else.

A Strange Time in Sports

Time was when sports was a way for people to escape the cares of their daily lives.

One of my favorite sports writers, Red Smith, once observed that people went to sporting events to have fun, then they picked up the newspaper the next day to read about it "and have fun all over again."

But these are strange days in sports.

• Last weekend, I wrote on this blog about the trouble Alex Rodriguez was having with the revelation that he tested positive for steroids in 2003.
  
  Joel Sherman of the New York Post writes that the Yankee organization and Rodriguez's teammates will stand by him. Both are committed to him through 2017 because of the rich contract he signed with the Yankees.
  
  "As bizarre as it might sound considering current events," Sherman writes, "A-Rod actually has more job security than anyone in baseball."
  
  The Rodriguez revelation is another opportunity for some to play the race card. Jason Whitlock writes, for Fox Sports, that the "furor" over Rodriguez and Barry Bonds is really about protecting the legacy of a revered white hero, Babe Ruth.
  
  Now, I realize there are some differences between Whitlock and myself that affect our perceptions. He is black, I am white. I am also more than seven years older than he is, which may not be a lot in the great scheme of things, but it means I'm old enough to remember when Ruth's home run record was surpassed by Hank Aaron. I was 14 when that happened, and Whitlock was not yet 7.
  
  Aaron was one home run away from tying Ruth when the 1973 season ended, and he had to endure an offseason filled with the racism and the hate of those who wanted Ruth to remain the all-time home run king before being allowed to take the field and claim the record. But he did so with his natural abilities, just as Ruth did a couple of generations earlier. That, to me, has always been the difference between Ruth and Aaron and today's ball players who have exceeded (in Bonds' case) or who threaten to exceed (in Rodriguez's) the all-time mark with the help of performance-enhancing drugs.
  
  The "furor" has never been about racism for me. It's about cheating. Aaron and Ruth didn't cheat. Bonds and Rodriguez did.
  
  When Whitlock writes, "Barry Bonds threatened Ruth's legacy in a way Hank Aaron never could," it implies a lack of understanding about the reality of the times. In 1974, George Wallace was still a political force in America. School busing was still a prominent issue in America.
  
  If steroids had been a potential factor in the 1970s, I'm sure many in the anti-Aaron camp would have seized on it. But he could not be accused of cheating, so the underlying objection was about race. The passage of time — and the rise of Bonds and Rodriguez — may permit some, like Whitlock, to conveniently overlook that racism was alive and well in the 1970s, even if it was no longer legally sanctioned in places where it had been only a few years earlier.
  
  Rodriguez has been a respected star in baseball, who was often cited as proof that great things can be accomplished if a player relies strictly on his natural abilities. But the revelation of his steroids use has prompted many to second-guess their conclusions. Commissioner Bud Selig suggested, to USA Today, that he would consider reinstating Aaron as baseball's all-time home run king.
  
  Tom Knott writes, in the Washington Times, that, as far as the fans are concerned, there are already asterisks attached to the names of many modern stars.
  
  "Selig's sudden philosophical shift comes about 20 years too late," says Knott. "His anxiety over the record book comes late, too."


• One of the all-time great football players (in my opinion) — Brett Favre — appears to have called it quits — for good, this time. But some continue to raise doubts.
  
  Dennis Dillon of The Sporting News, for example, suggests that Favre, who will turn 40 before the next NFL season ends, may be setting the stage for another return to football, this time with Green Bay's rivals from Minnesota, the Vikings.
  
  Dillon may prove to be right. Perhaps we won't know for certain until training camp opens in the summer. Maybe a few months off to rest will give him time to persuade himself, again, that he can still do things he did when he was 10 years younger. But, as I wrote on this blog in recent days, I think Favre may be finished this time. His December collapse with the Jets may have been the wake-up call he needed.
  
  I disagree with Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution when he says Favre "is the most overrated athlete of our time."
  
  For nearly two full decades, Favre played football in one of the harshest climates imaginable, but he took the Packers to two consecutive Super Bowls. It was a coaching decision that cost the Packers the second one, not an on-the-field decision. And Favre won three MVPs — more than anyone else in NFL history.
  
  And he also established a record for consecutive starts that may well last forever. In the process, he set many records that may prove just as elusive for future quarterbacks. He revived a franchise that had been given up for dead many times in the decades since Bart Starr was the quarterback and Vince Lombardi was the coach.
  
  Overrated? Hardly.

As I say, these are strange days in the world of sports.

But when hasn't it been a strange time for sports fans? I used to work on the sports copy desk for a metropolitan newspaper. During my days there, a great college basketball player, Len Bias, was thought to be the next star of the Boston Celtics when he was taken second in the NBA draft in 1986. But less than two days later, he died of a heart attack following a cocaine overdose.

When I came in to work that Thursday, I was immediately assigned the job of compiling information from the various wire services. I had envisioned, when I began working for the sports department, editing stories and writing headlines about games and coaching techniques. But that day, my attention was focused on real world issues, like drug abuse and drug laws and the death of an athlete at the tender age of 22.

I felt much the same way four years later. By that time, I had moved to a new state, where I was pursuing my master's degree, and I was working on the sports desk of another newspaper. College basketball star Hank Gathers collapsed and died during a game.

Gathers' death was not brought on by a drug overdose, but I still experienced a sense of "déjà vu." Once again, serious matters intruded into what should have been a pleasurable world.

I guess my point is that you can never completely escape from serious issues, whether you seek that escape through the sport that is in season or the darkness of a movie theater. The escape can only be temporary, and then, eventually, you are faced once again with the issue you sought to escape — be it the untimely death of someone like Bias or Gathers or the unpleasantness of seeking work in a contracting economy.

Escapism is temporary and fleeting. What remains is real, and it will always be there, waiting for you.

Really, Brett? Is It 4 Real This Time?

Brett Favre says his magnificent NFL career is over now.

Of course, it was about this time last year that Favre announced his retirement — then he decided to come back when training camp opened.

So, with Brett Favre, it's always wise to give this kind of thing a little time.

But I'm inclined to believe Favre when he says this time it's the real thing.

Favre has played for 18 seasons now. That's a long career for anyone but especially for a quarterback. What's really amazing about Favre is that he played in so many games, in spite of being sacked by some of the greatest defensive linemen of his time and in spite of being slammed by those same linemen, whether he threw the ball or took the loss.

Emotionally, it was probably more difficult to leave the Packers and leave pro football at the same time — although, in hindsight and in part because I've been a Packers fan longer than Favre has been alive, maybe I felt that way because I was grateful for what he had meant to the franchise and I was reluctant to see it end.

If I, as a fan — and one who has never been to a game at Lambeau Field, either — felt that reluctance, I have no trouble accepting that Favre himself had difficulties with leaving the game he had played for so many years at the same time he left the city where he played it in the majority of those years.

And he couldn't do it. He returned and worked his magic for the New York Jets as well as he could. But he's 39 years old now, and it's harder to overcome aches and pains when you're about to turn 40 than it was when you were 25. He nearly took what had been a 4-12 team to the playoffs, but he ran out of gas in the last month of the season — and that seems to have been the deal breaker.

I'm sure Favre would have liked to win a second Super Bowl ring, but his last best shot at that came with Green Bay the year before — when his Packers lost to the Giants in overtime in the NFC Championship. In hindsight, it would have been better to leave the NFL after narrowly missing the Super Bowl. Favre had two Super Bowl appearances in the 1990s; some of the great NFL quarterbacks never get the chance to play in more than one Super Bowl, and some never play in one at all.

Favre's spot in NFL history is secure. Green Bay has already asserted its intention to retire his number when an appropriate amount of time has passed. And New York's new coach, Rex Ryan, will never have the opportunity to coach Favre, but he summed it up for everyone: "If he's not the best quarterback ever, then he's certainly in the conversation."

'A-Fraud' Can't Compete With Evidence

Alex Rodriguez apparently came clean today, acknowledging, in an interview with ESPN's Peter Gammons, what just about everybody already knew.

He used steroids.

Rodriguez gave the following as his excuse — he was young, he was naïve, he was under a lot of pressure to produce because of the extremely lucrative contract he signed a few years earlier.

Well, cry me a river.

Thomas Boswell wrote, in today's Washington Post, that Rodriguez needed to tell the truth and live with the consequences.

But he also suggested that, at some point, we need to finish this and move on.

Indeed we do. But this isn't finished — not until the whispers that remain about other ballplayers have stopped. And that won't be achieved unless we permit the investigations in baseball to run their course. A player's personal popularity is no measure of whether he is guilty of using steroids or not — Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire were popular with the fans, but they appear to be as guilty of steroids use as Barry Bonds, who was widely disliked and now faces perjury charges.

And Rodriguez has been generally popular, although there have always been fans who resented his enormous paycheck — and his inability to lead teams to the World Series.

Using steroids is cheating, plain and simple. Joe Posnanski is right when he writes, for Sports Illustrated, that Rodriguez didn't need to take steroids. He had an abundance of talent.

Some players with far less talent may have felt that steroids would keep them playing longer and help them play better than they might otherwise. But Rodriguez wasn't one of those players. In 2003, when he tested positive for steroids, Rodriguez was the highest-paid player in baseball, by far, and he was widely viewed to be a natural talent. He was still in his 20s, and people were speaking of him in the same way they speak of the legendary players of the past.

Well, Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron and Willie Mays combined for more than 2,000 home runs, and none of them ever took steroids. They accomplished things with their natural talents. Many others may have wished they had those skills, and some may have resented the fact that Ruth and Aaron and Mays had those skills, and they did not.

But that's the way life is. Some people have natural skills — whether those skills are for hitting a baseball or playing a musical instrument or performing on the silver screen — that have the potential to produce a lot of income. Most do not.

It is good, as Barack Obama said tonight, that baseball is taking this issue seriously — at last. It has taken 20 years, but perhaps now baseball is sending an unmistakable signal to the young people of America that "there are no shortcuts." That may be the only good thing to come of this, but, if so, it may be sufficient.

For baseball to restore its integrity, it must rid itself of the cheaters — just as it did in the wake of the "Black Sox Scandal" 90 years ago.

'Pay-Rod' Paying the Price

Here in Texas, when Alex Rodriguez signed his mega-million-dollar contract to play for the Texas Rangers, his nickname of "A-Rod" was immediately transformed to "Pay-Rod."

These days, he plays third base for the New York Yankees, but, earlier in his career, he was a shortstop. Shortstops are notorious for being weak hitters — typically — but Rodriguez is 12th on the all-time home run list with 553.

If he hits 47 more, he will join a very exclusive club — only half a dozen major league baseball players have hit as many as 600 home runs in their careers and, unless Rodriguez spends a lot of time on the disabled list (or is otherwise unable to play), he will easily be the youngest to achieve it. Babe Ruth was 36 when he hit his 600th home run; Rodriguez is only 33.

There may be some doubt, however, about his future in major league baseball.

Selena Roberts and David Epstein write in Sports Illustrated that Rodriguez tested positive for two steroids (testosterone and Primobolan) in 2003, when, as a shortstop for the Rangers, he won the American League home run crown and the AL Most Valuable Player award.

Kevin Kaduk writes, in "Big League Stew" for Yahoo!, that, if the report is true, it will be devastating.

I don't know if I would go that far. Some of the recent revelations about steroid use in baseball truly were devastating. I have the feeling that baseball fans are becoming accustomed to it, and some may have suspected that Rodriguez had been guilty of using steroids in the past.

Rodriguez faces no penalty or legal action because "the survey testing that took place in 2003 was intended to be non-disciplinary." It was also intended to be anonymous, so major league baseball is making no comment on the report. In 2003, there was no penalty or punishment for a positive test.

However, at the very least, the allegations will be a distracting cloud that follows Rodriguez through the 2009 season and, in all likelihood, beyond.

There may be some logical explanations about testosterone — it is available by prescription for some uses. Primobolan, however, has no approved prescription use — but it is regarded as a "weak steroid" and is typically used with other steroids.

If such an explanation exists, Rodriguez is not required to disclose it unless he decides to do so on his own. But such an explanation may be regarded with suspicion today. As Pete Gaines points out in Deadspin, Rodriguez flatly denied ever taking steroids in a 2007 interview with Katie Couric.

New York is clearly not the place where a professional athlete wants to play with this kind of controversy swirling around him. Joel Sherman writes, in the New York Post, that the Yankees must regret signing him to a new 10-year, $275 million contract in 2007, with a clause that would pay him an additional $30 million if he breaks Barry Bonds' all-time career home run mark — less than two months after he opted out of the last three years of his old contract.

There is bound to be more reaction from New York. It is a city that takes baseball very seriously. Rodriguez was expected to add to the Yankees' extensive list of World Series championships — but New York hasn't even won an American League pennant since Rodriguez has been on the roster.

Looking Ahead to the Super Bowl

---

The president will not exactly be an impartial observer on Sunday.

---

For football fans, I guess Super Bowl weekend is always a bittersweet time.

It's the weekend when the pro football season comes to an end (the college season wrapped up three weeks ago), and there won't be much football news for the next six months — other than the NFL draft in the spring.

But it's also the weekend when this season's champion will be crowned amid all sorts of hoopla.

Bruce Springsteen will be on hand to provide the halftime entertainment. And even non-football fans tune in — some to watch the commercials, some because it's what everyone else will be doing. I have a friend who is not a football fan, but he says he records the game every year, then fast-forwards through it to watch the commercials.

Anyway, just as a reminder ...

Super Bowl XLIII
Pittsburgh (12-4-0) vs. Arizona (9-7-0)
6 p.m. (EST), NBC

Now, let's break this thing down.

Who has the advantage at ...

Quarterback

Statistically, this looks like a mismatch. Arizona's Kurt Warner had the third-best QB rating (96.9) in the entire NFL — and the best in the NFC. His counterpart, Ben Roethlisberger of Pittsburgh, wasn't in the Top 20 in the NFL, and he ranked 12th (with an 80.1) in the AFC.

Warner passed for 4,583 yards. Roethlisberger accounted for 3,301. Warner connected for 30 TDs through the air. Roethlisberger had slightly more than half as many (17). Warner completed two-thirds of his passes. Roethlisberger completed just under three-fifths.

Neither had a distinct advantage in avoiding turnovers. They were about even in the number of interceptions they threw — Roethlisberger was picked off 15 times, Warner 14. And both quarterbacks lost seven fumbles.

To be fair, Warner attempted 129 more passes than Roethlisberger did — probably because Pittsburgh had a stronger running game and could rely on it more often. But, even though he had fewer pass attempts, Roethlisberger was sacked nearly twice as often. Big Ben was tackled for a loss 46 times while Warner was brought down 26 times.

Advantage: Arizona.

Rushing

Neither team has a 1,000-yard rusher.

Pittsburgh's top runner is Willie Parker, who ran for 791 yards. Mewelde Moore was second with 588. Each produced five rushing touchdowns.

Arizona's leading rusher is Edgerrin James, who only compiled 514 yards, probably because the Cardinals relied so much on the aerial attack. He scored three touchdowns. Tim Hightower gained only 399 yards, but he accounted for 10 TDs.

Of the two teams, Pittsburgh probably got more from its ground game this season, so ...

Advantage: Pittsburgh.

Receiving

With their edge at the quarterback position, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Cardinals have the upper hand at receiver — Larry Fitzgerald was the NFC's leader in receiving yards with 1,431, Anquan Boldin was ninth in the NFC with 1,038, and Steve Breaston was 11th with 1,006. Fitzgerald also led the NFC in receiving TDs with 12, Boldin was third in the NFC with 11, and Breaston had three.

Fitzgerald and Boldin were 1-2 in the NFC in receptions — Fitzgerald had 96 and Boldin had 89. Breaston was 12th with 77. Fitzgerald averaged 14.9 yards/catch. Boldin's average was 11.7, and Breaston's average was 13.1

I don't mean to suggest that Pittsburgh doesn't have any weapons at receiver, but if the QB doesn't have the numbers, neither will the receivers.

The Steelers' Hines Ward was seventh in the AFC in receiving yards with 1,043. Santonio Holmes was 20th with 821 yards. Ward was tied for sixth in the league in receiving TDs with seven; Holmes had five.

And Ward was ninth in the AFC in receptions with 81. Holmes wasn't in the Top 20 in the AFC, but he had a respectable 55 receptions, which was good enough for a 14.9 yards/catch average. Ward's average was 12.9.

Advantage: Arizona.

Defense

Pittsburgh's James Harrison was fourth in the NFL in sacks with 16.0, and teammate LaMarr Woodley was tied for ninth in the NFL with 11.5. Aaron Smith wasn't in the Top 20 in the NFL, but he tied for 14th in the AFC with 5.5 sacks. The Cardinals didn't even have anyone who finished in the Top 20 in the NFC, let alone the NFL.

Harrison also led the NFL in forcing fumbles, with seven. Arizona's Gerald Hayes was in the NFL's Top 20 in forced fumbles with four.
So the Steelers seem to have the edge when it comes to putting pressure on the quarterback.

But, if Arizona's offensive line manages to hold up against Pittsburgh, how will Warner fare against the Steeler secondary?

Troy Polamalu tied for second in the NFL in interceptions with seven. Teammate Tyrone Carter wasn't in the NFL's Top 20, but he tied for 17th in the AFC with three.

Arizona's Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie tied for 14th in the NFL with four. He was also the only Cardinal in the NFC's Top 20 in that category.

Advantage: Pittsburgh.

Kicking

Both teams have accurate placekickers.

Arizona's Neil Rackers nailed 18 of 20 field goal attempts from inside the 39, and he made seven of eight attempts from beyond the 40. He made all 44 PATs.

Pittsburgh's Jeff Reed made 27 of 31 field goal attempts this season. He made all 10 of his attempts inside the 30, missed one between the 30 and 39 and made nine of 12 from the 40 and beyond. He missed one PAT.

If it comes down to the kicking game for either team, I don't see an advantage for either squad.

Weather

The game is being played in Tampa. The temperature should be in the 50-60 range with a light breeze. It should be mostly cloudy, but no rain is expected.

So who's going to win? Well, they say defense wins championships. If that proves to be true on Sunday, I think the advantage will belong to Pittsburgh.

It's always tempting to go with the underdog, but the New York Giants may have used up Cinderella's quota for awhile last year.

I predict Pittsburgh 27, Arizona 20.

Peter King's Random Thoughts About the Super Bowl

Peter King is an excellent, entertaining writer.

And, for years now, I have enjoyed reading his "random thoughts" and his "10 things I think I think" columns that he's written for Sports Illustrated.

This week, as he prepares for this Sunday's Super Bowl between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals, he has posted a "Ten Things I Think I Think during Super Bowl Week in Tampa" that should be read by every football fan — and, if you aren't a football fan but you're planning to watch the game, anyway, you probably should read it, too.

His first item probably makes the most sense to me. "I think I wish the NFL would stop using the Roman numerals," he writes. This year's game is the 43rd Super Bowl — and, instead of calling it Super Bowl XLIII, King says it should simply be called Super Bowl 43.

I agree. Using Roman numerals made sense when the game was young — and I'm old enough to remember those days. I was in first grade when the first Super Bowl was played. But now that we've nearly had as many Super Bowls as we've had presidents, it's time to modernize it.

King's other observations are probably more suited for the hard-core football fans. And, while I consider myself a hard-core football fan, I understand that millions of non-football fans will tune in to the game — because it's the "in" thing to do or because they want to see the ads that are being shown this year or because they want to watch the halftime show with Bruce Springsteen.

Whatever motivates you to watch the game, make sure you have something to nibble on. And enjoy yourself!

Football and the Damage Done

Like millions of Americans, I enjoy watching football games on TV. Mostly, I prefer college football, but I do enjoy watching professional football. And I'll be watching the Super Bowl on Sunday night.

If you watch football, though, you know there are some pretty vicious hits administered. Most of the concerns that are expressed when a player has received such a hit and is lying on the ground for an extended period afterward have revolved around whether the injury may cause paralysis so when a player gets up and is able to walk off the field under his own power, that is generally taken as a good sign by most fans.

I recall a comic strip — either "Doonesbury" or "Tank McNamara" — from many years ago in which a couple of the characters were seen watching a football game on TV. The panels in the comic strip only showed the characters and the side view of the TV they were watching, but you could read the dialogue that was being spoken by the announcers. They were speculating about the nature of an injury suffered by one of the players. Then one of the announcers intoned that the player in question appeared to be dead.

"But what a hand he's getting!" his colleague said.

"These are some kind of football fans!" the first announcer agreed.

But it's no joking matter.

Many football teams play on artificial surfaces, which are really nothing more than asphalt covered with green plastic that may look like grass — but being tackled on it is like being tackled in the middle of the street in front of your house.

For years, fans have known that players suffer concussions almost routinely. There were many questions about concussions and, as CNN reports, those in the medical community couldn't tell athletes — or anyone else, really — much more than the obvious — that a concussion was "a jarring blow to the head that temporarily stunned the senses, occasionally leading to unconsciousness."

A concussion was considered an "invisible injury," CNN's medical producer Stephanie Smith reports. It couldn't be tested. No MRI or CT scan could detect it.

But Smith reports that the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy (CSTE) at the Boston University School of Medicine is learning about concussions and the damage they cause to the brain by studying brain tissue taken from dead professional football players. Their findings can have an important influence on contact sports, perhaps leading to improvements in artificial surfaces and protective headgear.

No one is suggesting banning football, but concussions clearly cause more extensive brain damage than most people probably imagined. And it's important to study the affect of multiple concussions on athletes to learn more. Smith says that about 100 athletes have already given their consent for their brains to be studied after they die.

Damage from multiple concussions is called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), and Dr. Ann McKee, a neuropathologist at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Bedford, Mass., tells CNN that CSTE studies have revealed "brown tangles" throughout the brain that resemble the kinds of tangles found in elderly patients with dementia.

There's still a lot of research that needs to be done. There appear to be a variety of symptoms of extensive, long-term damage, but the most frequent ones include depression, sleep disorders and headaches.

The research that has been done is good, but much more needs to be done.