"The Greatest" is dead

Pat Forde, a real journalist at ESPN, wrote yet another weak piece for the web site.  I do appreciate Forde's calling for an end to the BCS, even though his writing lacks, in my opinion.

In general, ESPN journalism is an effort in one-upsmanship, much like the fan-dom of today’s athletics- “Who is the single best? Who, throughout history, has achieved more in sports, ascending to the throne of greatest?” The question really is that silly. Realistically, achievement in sports more accurately mirrors the stock market or the tides. Michael Jordan ought to be considered for superlative greatness in 6 or 7 out of the many years of his life.  

Best ever cannot be said. By such simple measures and ignorant assumptions, mediocre writers get front page print by waving superlatives in a fit of delusional authoritative prose. So sad that one cannot simply state Michael Phelps has won the most medals of any Olympian ever.

The psychologist Abraham Maslow once defined an aspect of behavior in terms of human potential. He called it “self-actualization.” Self-actualization is the achievement of one’s potential to extent of rising above one’s circumstances or otherwise perceived limits. Isn’t that “greatness?” Gandhi and Martin Luther King jr. are examples of such “greatness.”

The significance of these Olympic moments may pale in comparison to Jesse Owens humiliating Hitler and single-handedly precluding the Nazi demise, or the greatness of Carl Lewis in multiple disciplines on the track, or the precision and grace in gravity defiance of the great Nadia Comaneci, or the crippled clinching of Gold by Keri Strugg. It may just pale in comparison to the anchor of the US 4x100 swimming relay, Jason Lezak, that gave Phelps gold, with the heroically defiant "smashing" of an arrogant French anchor man.

Or Dara Torres, 41 years old, swimming for gold with a young daughter cheering her on. Melanie Roach is 33 and mother of 3 children. She came in 6^th in weightlifting, successfully completing all of her target lifts. Reese Hoffa was orphaned by his mother at a very early age. Now he competes for Gold in the Shot put. Or even Walton Eller, who won Gold in the double trap. Perhaps if there were more trap events…

No doubt Michael Phelps is earning a spot among legends in the Olympics, but I submit that winning Gold does less than he might think to solidify his place in history. It’s how you do it and against what odds. We and future generations will remember that Tiger Woods once won the U.S. Open with a broken knee and torn ligaments.

No, Phelps is most likely not the greatest Olympian ever, simply because there are no metrics to gauge such a claim across so many events and so many circumstances. Thus, foolish is the statement "the Greatest." 

"Like anyone could ever know that, Napoleon."

Mormon Speculation

This post comes from a comment I wrote on Times & Seasons, an LDS blog. The subject was on the perpetuation of LDS urban legends and speculation, such as the recently skewered one about pioneers bowing at the feet of those who lived at the time of President Hinckley. The author argues basically for restraint in our stating what we think is a truth. I couldn't agree more.

Ardis,

Great post. I’ve read many of the comments as well and I’d rather address the original post than any of the reactions.

"Scientific Uncertainty" is a fundamental principle of rational decision-making. What we can be sure of in any production of science, history, or rhetoric is that there will be another side of the coin, an opposing argument, a different interpretation. We are interpretive creatures. We do like to create assertions and develop arguments to "prove" the truth of those assertions, but in the end our assertions are based on our interpretation of facts, sensory experience, or otherwise. You’re right on when you posit a wiser, more conservative approach to fact-finding.

Socrates spoke volumes when he said "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing". I think there are things to know- we don’t know nothing whatsoever, but such a saying ought to cause us to glance at our references- heuristics, schemas, frames of reference, citations, paradigms, what have you. For me, credibility comes from a subjective approach. Objectivity is necessary, but reference to one’s perspective must be the foundation for such an approach as it guides one’s objectivity. Even then, uncertainty exists because we cannot fully take on another’s perspective (Joseph Smith said "No man knows my history."), and we cannot form such a thing into just the right words so that there will be no subjective interpretation of the words.

This raises a more important question. What can we know and how can we know it? Knowing the Gospel is true is something God promises that we can know. That knowledge is conveyed through spiritual manifestations. These "manifestations" sometimes get us into trouble. When I hear about us being Generals and having pioneers bow down, I just get all misty and warm inside. Who’s to say that’s not a manifestation and confirmation of truth. Well, hopefully myself.

This does not destroy our art of rhetoric and debate. We are welcome to assert and argue, but a wise person will not stand by his assertions with a figurative bomb strapped to his chest yelling "me or you, baby!" Persuasion is an art, just as being persuaded is an art, though more difficult to master.

In the end, the wise man can say, "I don’t know" and in the Church, we can say, "The idea of me being a General has no bearing on my identity as a member here and now. I still have so much to do in so little time." I try to live by a philosophy of preparing myself today for opportunities I don’t know about tomorrow. I live in the now. This takes some distrust of such premonitions and speculation. I find it quite liberating. In the Church context, hopefully we can focus on our simple testimonies of being children of God and members of the church, and fulfill our duties today.

Again, great post. I agree.

For those Interested...

In political philosophy:

I've been studying political philosophies lately because of what I perceive as gross misrepresentations in the terms "conservative" and "liberal". Basically, I think people like to call opposing opinions one or the other, depending on their own opinion of course. And so very often, our understandings of each side of the spectrum neglects the opportunity for laudable "middle" opinioning. I think this is more a form of ignorance than anything as individual's opinions on issues never fall exactly in the same place on the continuum of underlying political philosophy anyway. An easy example is hearing someone's opinion on immigration and agreeing, but then seeking to add or subtract something. It's already not the same opinion. Personally, I see merits in many philosophies and lean towards some more than others. As well, I see that there are serious flaws in the various philosophies. I found an article about some of this kind of thing:

Conservatives and Libertarians

from The American Scene - Main by Jim Manzi

I am a conservative, but consider myself to be very close to a small-l libertarian. Whatever the theoretical differences between these viewpoints, I think that in contemporary America two practical distinctions are fundamental. The first relates to the limits, and the second to the purpose, of libertarian policies.

Bill Buckley got to the essence of the first distinction 25 years ago in an interview with Reason magazine in which he said that he “shares about 90 percent of the views of most libertarians”:

Now if, for instance, a society feels that its attachment to that society is substantially vitiated in virtue of the toleration, let’s say, of a movie based on a comedy treatment of Dachau, it tends to lose self-esteem. And to the extent that it loses self-esteem, it stands in danger of reducing that which is its principal resource in matters of emergency. An America that hates itself cannot possibly defend itself against the Soviet Union or anybody else.

…I’m talking about morale. A morale is not the kind of stuff you see at a football game. I’m talking about a morale in the sense of urging you or me voluntarily to make sacrifices for the survival of something we cherish. Now if we don’t cherish it, then we’re not disposed to make any sacrifices.

The Soviet Union no longer exists, but enemies spring eternal, and if we alienate the affections of our own society we will be unable to defend ourselves. Until the world settles into an endless commercial peace, we must accept some limits on lifestyle and economic freedoms in order to retain the social cohesion necessary to meet inevitable external threats.

Unfortunately, I can’t rely on Bill Buckley’s eloquence to delineate what I believe to be the second key distinction, namely the Libertarian movement’s misapplication of libertarian ideas.

A central insight of Hayek, Popper & Co. was that our ignorance of human society runs deep. We need the experimentation of an open society not only because different people often want different things, but even more importantly because we’re never sure what works. I generally support, for example, a high degree of legal toleration of behavior that I find personally objectionable. I recognize, though, that others believe that what I think should be tolerated goes too far and threatens social cohesion, or what Buckley called morale. How do we resolve this impasse?

The best answer for conservatives or libertarians is federalism, or more precisely, subsidiarity – the principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest competent authority. After all, a typical American lives in a state that is a huge political entity governing millions of people. As many decisions as possible ought to be made by counties, towns, neighborhoods and families (in which parents have significant coercive rights over children). In this way, not only can different preferences be met, but we can learn from experience how various social arrangements perform.

The characteristic error of contemporary conservatives in this regard has been a want of prudential judgment in trying to enforce too many social norms on a national basis. The characteristic error of contemporary Libertarianism has been the parallel failure to appreciate that a national rule of “no restrictions on non-coercive behavior” (which, admittedly, is something of a cartoon) contravenes a primary rationale for libertarianism. What if social conservatives are right and the wheels really will come off society in the long run if we don’t legally restrict various sexual behaviors? What if left-wing economists are right and it is better to have aggressive zoning laws that prohibit big-box retailers? I think both are mistaken, but I might be wrong. What if I’m right for some people for this moment in time, but wrong for others or wrong the same people ten years from now? The freedom to experiment needs to include freedom to experiment with different governmental (i.e., coercive) rules.

Now, obviously, there are limits to this. What if some states want to allow human chattel slavery? Well, we had a civil war to rule that out of bounds. Further, this imposes trade-offs on people who happen to live in some family, town or state that limits behavior in some way that they find odious, and must therefore move to some other location or be repressed. But this is a trade-off, not a tyranny.

We live in an imperfect world. Ironically, given the deeply anti-utopian orientation of Hayek and Popper, contemporary Libertarianism has veered off into increasingly utopian speculations disconnected from the practical realities that ought to animate it. At the same time, the Conservative movement has become increasingly ideological about enforcing moral norms. Both could learn a lot from re-engaging with one another.

I am Iron Man

My mission trainer is a triathlon "enthusiast". I've always wanted to do one, mostly because I think it is just about the toughest thing anyone can do. And I'm all about tough.

So, last Saturday, I flip on the TV and the Ironman is on. I watch as the best cross the finish line. The women's winner was a girl from England and she was absolutely beaming. She was ear to ear smiling- pure joy. I didn't get to see team Hoyt- the father/disabled son pair. There were 60+ year-old folks finishing- one blind, led by is son. One of the coolest was the man with prosthetic legs.

After watching all these people finish, I decided I want that feeling, so I emailed my trainer at told him that in 5 years, we're doing Ironman.

My Running Workout

Last year I pretty much limped through the finish line of the Salt Lake 1/2 marathon. I registered for the thing in November and started running. I didn't run in December or January. In February, we got a tax refund, I got new Nike+ shoes and the accompanying pedometer sensor. I started running again. In my second week of running, I did 5 miles- more than I had ever run in my life. The 3rd week, I ran 8 miles- again, more than I had ever run in my life. I moseyed through the next week, got sick for a few weeks straight and all of the sudden the 1/2 marathon was a week away. I ran a few times the week of- 2 miles as fast as I could- and went to the race. I was confident because of the drastic success I had early in my training, but also very wary. I paced myself to a very conversational pace and bonked at 9 miles. The remaining 4 miles was walk/jog and extreme pain. I mean pain. My legs and hips were aching and burning all at once. I was miserable.



This year, I registered 11 weeks prior to the day of the race. There's a few reasons:

1) I know that I am a procrastinator, but also that I can turn out impressive work in the short amount of time I leave myself.

2) I really didn't think I could get myself to get running again. It's hard to get up and give myself time to run with everything else going on- the same lame excuse we always give and always hear.

I am in week 2 of running. Last week I ran 3 miles total- 2, 1.5 mile jogs around the block. This week I ran 1.5 miles, 2.2 miles fast, and today, 5 miles. I feel like it's riding a bicycle.

I credit my optimism and success with running to 2 things:

1) A genetic predisposition for endurance. (rather than speed as my football career displayed)

2) A very good workout regimen.

I got my workout online from a site I already lost track of, so I do not take any credit for it's results except those I have made for myself.

The workout consists of running 4 days a week and alternating intensities:

Day 1- Monday- Recovery
The purpose of day 1 is to help your body recover from the last run of the week before. Running easy helps the muscles pump out leftover lactic acid and other substances. It is an easy jog (60% intensity), conversation pace- you can talk freely without gasping for breath- and is timed. To begin 20 minutes is good. I've gotten up to 40 minutes with a focus on speeding up, but still maintaining my breathing.
This is a good out-and-back run: 10 minutes out (my sensor tells me when I'm 1/2 way) and 10 minutes back for a 20 minute run.

Day 2- Tuesday- Rest

Day 3- Wednesday- Fartlek
Funny name, very challenging. Basically, this is where you will alternate intensities. You can time it or use distance. I use time. Example:
35 minute run- 5 minutes @ 60%, 5 minutes 80%, 5 min. 60%, and so on until time is up. This is good overloading work. If there is a good hilly area to run on, that will give you the increased intensity you need without having to time it or anything.

Day 4- Thursday- Intervals
This is the hard day. I find a local track and jog and sprint alternating distances. At first I'll jog turns and sprint straightaways for 1 mile (4 laps). I'll work up to jogging a 1/2 lap and sprinting a 1/2 lap for 1 mile, then 2. After 5 or so weeks, I'll be able to jog one lap, sprint one lap for 4 miles or so.

Day 5- Friday- Rest

Day 6- Saturday- The Big One
Today is race simulation. I am at 5 miles this week. Next week I'll do 6 miles and I'll add 1 mile every week until race week. This is run at race intensity (60-80%), which is entirely up to you. I love the sense of accomplishment this run gives when its over. It usually hurts a bit, but I love a little workout pain.

Day 7- Sunday- Rest

So that's the workout. I try to eat healthy carb stuff throughout the week and within 45 minutes after a workout, I drink a full glass of Chocolate milk- it gives the perfect ratio of protein to carbs for your body to recover energy and build muscle at the same time. Nothing is better for you.

Benefits of Nike+:
Timed or measured workouts using your iPod. You tell it what your goal is: time, distance, whatever. It tells you how far you've gone, how far you have to go, how long you've run, how much longer you have to go, when you've gone half way. After the workout, you plug in the iPod to your computer and let it upload your workout to Nike+.com. On the site, you can set a long-term goal, coordinate goals with other people, have competitions (I'm running for Republicans, Men vs. Women, the State of Utah, and the 25-29 age group right now), but most importantly, you can see all your runs graphed by how fast you were running at each moment, what the mile splits were, your pace, etc. It gives great info. I highly, highly recommend it. And the shoes are the most comfortable I've ever worn.

Good Running!

The Back Side of Public Transportation

This morning on the bus to school I was the victim of a public transit atrocity.

The bus effortlessly plowed through the inch of snow covering the park and ride lot on its way to the stop 4o yards away, in the corner of the lot. As it rounded the corner to pull into the lot, I glanced up to see who might be waiting at the stop. At first, it wasn't clear, but as we drew closer, I could see two people. The bus was fairly full, and I had an empty seat next to me, near the front of the bus- very accessible. I ceded that I would share the ride to the train station as I had done many a time before. This did not trouble me, even though I had been troubled earlier by the tardiness of the bus at my stop.

As we pulled up to the stop, a woman emerged from the cover of the bus stop quickly. She was overweight, dressed in green nurses pants and a knitted brown sweater that was too big and very ugly. She had hair that was light brown and too long, and glasses that were too big. She screamed "no class". Her mouth was flapping incessantly, although she wore a smirk as if to say "you're late- I do my job, you obviously can't do yours". I could tell she was upset, but not in the usual angry sort of way, rather in a murmuring sort of way.

As she boarded the bus, she kept ranting, now directing her rant to the driver. The driver answered simply, albeit interrupting her rant, which did not have an end. She began down the isle and stopped by my neighboring seat- she had found her spot. She turned her back to me to sit, still ranting.

As she began to sit, I performed a quick calculation of her sitting trajectory and- no! she was too close! Her big green back side was already coming down, almost in excruciating slow motion. I was pinned the wall of the bus. I had no escape. And then...she sat on me.

"Excuse me" she said.

We Thank Thee, O God, For a Prophet pt.1

I spent some time before my mission sitting in a rocking chair in my parents' home reading the biography of President Gordon B. Hinckley. I read eagerly about the similarities I felt in our lives. Some events of our lives were so similar and the biography candidly portrayed an imperfect person in President Hinckley, something that I drew a lot of strength from. I, myself am, and especially at that time, was imperfect, to say the least. His mission experience struck me, where no significant detail was given to his success in baptizing numbers of people, but the struggles he had and the ultimate resolution he found in finally losing himself and simply working in faith. That was the work he had to do in order to do the work God needed him to do. I found my mission experience to be such work, as well.

The similarities are comforting. More importantly, I think, I can look more at the man, his character, and his words and draw an example for myself. President Hinckley was not a Prophet who was more than a man. He was humble, friendly, enthusiastic, and humorous. I think the latter qualities stem from humility, which stems from the lessons learned on his mission. Of all the things I have learned from him is that there is always room to grow, everything will end up fine, and you can't have too many friends.

Judiciary v. Adminstration

Interesting discussion today on Planning Law. We discussed a certain case in New Jersey where homeowners were suing a Planning Commission over their new Master plan for the area which included affording rezoning for a corporation with a larger parking lot and more commercial/office zoning for more research park and office construction neighboring their many homes .

Now it must be understood that the origins of planning in a statutory form began in the early 1900's with the zoning enabling act. Every state adopted this act and therefore were required to zone areas for land use. The zoning plan is effectively a land use law document, determining use. It is legislatively enacted by the administration of the municipality (city council, usually), making it nearly impossible to challenge legally. The only accepted way of challenging the action is if there is some sort of unconstitutionality of the arrangement i.e. segregation, or toxic waste dump amongst lower income properties.

On to this case. The case made it to appeal where it was promptly thrown out because of ripeness. There was no immediate negative impact on the residents as the master plan was just that, a plan. The Judge explained that the plan was simply a "best judgment of a proper course of action", and has no authority until it is adopted and enacted by the government and even then must be followed by various ordinances being implemented. Otherwise, a plan has no legal consequence. The people lost, mainly for this reason.

Another case, in Draper, Utah involved Harmon's grocers. They wanted a re-zoning to build a store, the neighbors hated the idea and the city council acted in a Judicial form and said "no". Harmon's sued that they had provided all process and information necessary to receive the zone change, but lost on the premise that although their ducks were in a row, they could not prove that the city's desire and decision to preserve the status quo would be less beneficial to the community. Not long after, Harmon's built their store because a new City Council was elected that wanted it there.

Yet another case involved a man who wanted to develop some of his land as a commercial use, as per the city master plan, but not the established zoning ordinance. He was rejected. He sued under Entitlement to a zoning change and lost.

This brings a planning law principle to bear.
The land use process has multiple levels. The foundation of land use is the zoning code. Then the master plan comes in as a quasi-code, or prospective code, not enforced at the time, but deferred to for future enforcement. Finally, the permit, which is license to build. How these levels operate is varied. In a state where planning is by statute vertically consistent, the law mandates that when the master plan is made, it is also adopted and the only question that remains is a question of what ordinances will govern the transformation such as timetables. In this system, everyone gets together and makes the plan and the decision. This works because there is no question of the legal consequence of the plan.

The alternatives are as seen in the cases. The first case shows a system where the plan has no power until at some point when it will be enacted. The flaw is in government where the plan has no power until the administration deems it does. The citizens can't stop the plan until the plan is law.
In the Harmon's case, the zoning ordinance under every circumstance could have been amended to let the store be built, but the Council forbade it. Then a new council came in and let Harmon's build. This shows the flaw in this form of government. In both circumstances, the people are at the mercy of the councils' whims. It seems that in the case of Planning and Land-use law, the statutes should govern and they should have no place but to be legally binding. It seems too much decision-making power is given to the whims of the municipality. The solution is vertical consistency. Make no plans unless they will matter.

Global Warming: Religion Class at the U

This brings me to another controversial topic. Yesterday, I had yet another tirade by a professor about Global Climate change., with all accompanying charts and Al Gore quotes, that have since been refuted by various sources, including the Physics for Future Presidents professor. Usually this professor is far more objective about his topics, but at the U, global climate change is becoming religion. So I begrudgingly sat through yet another sermon. Near the end of class, the sermon was wrapping up and one student raised his hand.

He said he wanted to dispute the data and presented some research to the opposite effect. He didn't wholeheartedly dispute the idea of global warming, however. Stumbling over his words, he tried as he might to express, at least, an unconvinced attitude towards the issue.

This is a good class and a good teacher, so my teacher wisely approached this situation as an opportunity to teach. We listened to a short lesson on the idea of "scientific uncertainty".

Now, during his sermon before, this same teacher had some trouble with his arguments in that citing one specific graphic, he showed a supposed correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, implying, as many have, that the CO2 is the cause and temperature is the effect. This is argued as either being a feedback loop with not discernible cause-effect relationship or more convincingly as temperature affecting CO2 concentrations- the anti-Gore argument. In fact, he taught us the Gore argument and then stated quite objectively that we actually do not know what these CO2 levels could do, we've never seen this before- a much more sound argument. This is the trouble Global Climate change proponents have with the theory.

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded, and as we can only conclude- humans are having a direct effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As to what this will cause, there are only theories, mostly doomsday in nature, and I see them mostly as some scientists, but mostly academics in other fields grabbing a very conservative conclusion and running away with it to all kinds of different places.

The final comment in the class was wise- "Even if these things don't happen, what is the harm in doing good for the environment. At the very least we've taken better car of our children." Amen.

My take: The only plausible argument is one in which we, as humans have a definite impact, and that it is very negative. For the climate, maybe. For our health, definitely yes. Therefore, make changes to our lifestyle. If not for ourselves, for our children and for the sake of the areas in which we live.

BCS v. NFL

An Amazing, Wacky Football Season

In College football, we saw a wild season that most closely resembled an NFL season. Good teams lost and underdogs won. Lots. As usual, the ending bore no resemblance to anything competitive. Again we see that the bowl season is not for crowning the competitive champion of Division 1 football, but to vote in the most popular football teams and players to awards of Heismans and glass footballs. Writers, analysts, and University officials corrupt college football in a white-collar oligarchy. Hype and talk rule over merit won on the field. The BCS reigns as the supreme contradiction of terms.

This year showed its flaws more than ever.

First case- Hawaii, Fiesta Bowl. Should Hawaii have been there? According to the current system, yes. What a waste. An over-rated, under-talented and impotent Hawaii team that has never won a game over a powerful opponent walked into a trap. But they deserved to be there under the current system. Our BYU Cougars head coach Bronco Mendenhall put it perfectly- all you need to do to crack the BCS is win all your games, not be good.

Supporting case- Ohio State. What a lame Championship game. Any team in college football can go 10 up on the best teams only to lose the lead just as fast. Any team can do that. There are a few good reasons why Ohio State lost so badly and why LSU won so convincingly- in the second quarter, when the game really ended.

Ohio State lost in coaching and in heart. These two aspects of their loss reflect on the comments by Bronco perfectly. Let’s explore these in reverse order. Ohio State lost in heart. Ohio State played a weak schedule, as they do every year. Jim Tressel understands what Bronco now understands. Just win your games and you’ll get BCS games and BCS money. The only side effect is that your team easily over-estimates its abilities in real competition. They lack enduring fight in the big game. They lack the extra gear developed only through going through the most difficult competitive fires. Secondly, Ohio State was out-coached. This is a function of the competition principle, reflecting on player talent levels and development. I’m sure Ohio State has great talent, but it never really shined, especially on defense. In the championship game, Ohio State showed exactly why they lost the game last year. They had no pressure defense to speak of, combining blitz pressure and man coverage defense. Blitzers were hesitant and un-intimidating while any kind of shut-down man coverage was non-existent. This is a function of competition because those skills are best learned and developed against dangerous players and teams where confidence and killer instinct are developed. The same goes for Hawaii. So Ohio State, Hawaii- shucks. Was the money worth the loss? Maybe, but not if you’re a competitor. From a fan- thanks for nothing.

On the other hand, LSU and Georgia- the convincing victors against these teams- have been forced, unknowingly, to learn these principles. The analysts point to speed in the SEC, where these teams play. However, USC has similar “speed”. Is it 40-yard dash speed or game speed. I say game speed. How is that developed? You got it, through competition. Pete Carroll’s competitive practice organization and the SEC’s competitive conference schedule are the reasons for team “speed”. Competition develops a killer instinct that translates into another gear the players play at. They find holes faster, hit harder, impose themselves more. And the more they do it, the better they become at it, seemingly knowing exactly where the play is going. So, kudos to the SEC for being the most competitive conference in college football and therefore ruling college football the past few years. It’s too bad we have to live with another National lack of championship year.
Not so fast, my friend. Thank heavens for the NFL this year.

NFL

What an amazing year. This year we’ve seen the best games in recent memory. I don’t mean a lot of scoring or huge plays all over the field. There were more games this year that I felt I had to sit through the whole game until the end. There was controversy, competition, and sentimentality. I think looking at some of the teams that made the most noise can best summarize this season. Let’s get started.

Spygate- Have to mention this. See Patriots. OK, I mentioned it. Moving on.

Pittsburg- The Steelers came out very hard and fast, looking like a Juggernaut. As the season wore on, they wore as well. They lost some games toward the end they should have won, based on their early-season performance. Credit this to some lack of planning by coaches, giving late season competition new looks and new attacks. It’s like the Steelers started out good at everything and never excelled at anything except the Zone Blitz. That, as usual ended the season as their bread and butter play. Their final game, last weeks wild card game, was one of the best games this year. It was a strange game, though. It was like the Steelers versus the bizarro Steelers. It was the same team in different uniforms with Jacksonville having a quarterback ending up with the one game-wining clutch play. It really could have gone either way.

Dallas- Oooh, I hate Dallas. So much to root against: T.O., Jerry Jones, AKA Al Davis, Dallas fans, and the monicre itself “America’s team”. I am forever grateful to Bill Simmons of ESPN for dubbing the Detroit Lions “God’s Team”. One up on ya big D. Dallas shot out as well, destroying competition. The Dallas-Green Bay matchup was most likely a preview of the NFC championship game. There is a stark difference in the teams, though. As we may see in the rematch, should it materialize. Dallas is headed where it headed last year, downhill. We’ve seen their momentum slow drastically over the final weeks of the season. Easily the most over-rated team with 11

Green Bay- The anti-Dallas. Thank heavens for Green Bay this year. To me, this year’s Green Bay season is the emotional hook for the NFL. How an you not be so stinkin proud of Brett Favre for the records, the wins, the high-fiving of the refs. He’s what’s right about the sport. I see him as a slap in the face of Barry Sanders and Tiki Barber in some ways, although not entirely. More Tiki than Barry, easily. 10 years and out? Shame on you. I give Barry the benefit of the doubt because of the trauma of so many years being the only person playing for the Detroit Lions. With the upcoming playoff games, should we see Green Bay-Dallas again, we’ll see Dallas on the downhill slope and Green Bay as we’ve seen them all year- going up and up. Gaining some more running game. Gaining some more defensive presence. They’re peaking at the right time. I chalk this up to Brett Favre. Like Bill Belichik, all year he has downplayed their talent, almost speaking in disbelief at the fact they are winning. Good psychology from a good leader.

New York Giants- The ultimate sandbag team. These guys can’t seem to show up unless all the cameras are around (Pats/Giants) or everyone hates them (away games). Actually, it seems like even Home games provide an away game. They should try filming another team’s defensive signals. I don’t expect much from them.

New England- Ah, yes. We love to hate. Or hate to love. Or defiantly love. Or are simply on the bandwagon. I defiantly love the Pats. 16-0 is great, but the way they’ve done it is the most impressive thing. They have been unbelievably poised, disciplined and defiant. From playing half the season up by 40 and still scoring the “Eff you” touchdown, or more correctly the “in our opinion it’s more embarrassing for you if we took a knee on 4th and short than if we had one receiver out and threw to him, at least giving you a chance to save some face and it’s not our fault you couldn’t stop it and we don’t have a running game, so we won’t embarrass you or ourselves by trying that” touchdowns. From Superbowl 42 ½ (I won’t mention the officiating in that one) with Indy and on it was all way more interesting. Almost every game was insanely competitive with every team taking shots and playing their guts out against the Pats. Through all of it, the Pats have come out perfect and better with the running game and defense. The fruits of competition. Here’s to 19-0, Bill.

Washington- Kudos for kicking it up a notch after Shawn Taylor was killed, but I personally think that will only take you so far, and it has.

Jacksonville- The new Steelers. Big and mean and tough. They will be an interesting matchup for New England this week.

Seattle- Kudos for dropping the run game when you did, Mike. Mid-season, Mike Holmgren gave the offense to Matt Hassellbeck and they’ve been winning ever since. Shawn Alexander is not the back he used to be. Thanks to the Patriots for proving it could be done, and in some cases, should be done.

All in all, this year provided some of the best football games I’ve seen in a long time- competition, heart, passion, discipline- good football.