Rooting for laundry

Just some brief thoughts while I watch Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Finals.  A couple things in the last few weeks have sparked some thoughts about sports fandom.

My formative years were in Boston.  In particular, the Boston of the 1970s, which featured very competitive teams in hockey and basketball, a couple noteworthy Patriots' seasons (albeit without any playoff victories), and of course some fear and loathing at Fenway.  If I had to rate my fan intensity at the time, it would have been 1) Red Sox, 2) Bruins, 3) Celtics, 4) Patriots.

That order changed in 1979 for two reasons: a) my family moved to Connecticut, and b) Larry Bird.
Hartford had its own new NHL team, the Whalers featuring Gordie Howe and, briefly, Bobby Hull.  The Whale was interesting for a few season, but their management in the late 80s and early 90s seemed to function more as a feeder system for the Penguins (Ron Francis!) than a respectable team.  In terms of my perspective, this meant a lot less local coverage of the Bruins.  On the other hand, Larry Bird made the Celtics an extremely exciting team, one which played a few games per season in Hartford.

So what I'm saying is that the Bruins dropped off the radar.  I did follow them in their Finals apperances in 1988 and 1990, but the Gretzky-era Oilers completely smoked them.

So over the years I followed basketball more and more and hockey less and less.  And then I moved to the DC area.  Now if anything could cure a person of NBA fandom, it might be the local presence of the Wizards.  So when I started watching the Capitals at Landru's, I saw an interesting team, esp. Mr. Alex Ovechkin, an exciting, charismatic player.  We saw this goal live:

But then I found that when the Caps played the Bruins, even though I'd completely lost touch with the team, I couldn't root against my favorite from childhood.  And I starting following Chara, Krecji, Lucic and the boys as they ran to a Stanley Cup title.  Yay!

Point is that I felt strongly about the logo, about the big B inside the spokes that makes the Bruins' logo.

My second point is different.  It relates to the murder investigation that has enmeshed one of the Patriots' star TE's, Aaron Hernandez.  I won't relate the details here.  Let's just that it looks very bad.  It looks like he was somehow involved in the murder of a guy who had been involved with his girlfriend's sister and that he actively tried to cover it up.  Some facts are indisputable, including that he brought in cleaners to clean the house, and that he destroyed his cell phone and his security system (presumably to get rid of incriminating evidence).

So this is a guy that all Patriots' fans loved just a few weeks ago.  He's a key part of their two TE offense, which has created all sorts of matchup problems for defenses.  But really, we don't know anything about the guy.  And it's depressing to feel that it's likely that he's just an overprivileged gangster, a jock who's never had to learn how to be a decent human being. And where the NFL (and most sports leagues) hold up their star players to be role models, the truth is that the ability to play football is no guarantee that a person is not a scumbag.  We've seen that with Ray Lewis, Mike Vick, Rae Carruth, etc., etc.

So here the point is that we need to be careful when we walk down the path of fandom, of rooting for laundry.  Because it may well be that the people being exalted don't really deserve it.

Debacle

Really?

This is what the NFL is putting out as their product to save a few million dollars annually of pension fund contributions?

Today's American executive justifies his existence by finding ways to cut corners. And the class warfare approach of demonizing unions and demanding concessions is one of the most popular ways to go. Why? Why do this? The league office is attacking the integrity of its product for pocket change.

What really gets me are the libertarians who show up at all the chat rooms and bulletin boards muttering their inane anti-union diatribes. "Why isn't anybody blaming the refs?" Well, the refs are willing to work under the prior conditions, that's why. Management locked them out.

Reminds me a lot of the teacher strike in Chicago. It's sad that class warfare is a growth industry.

For the edification of future generations, the picture above shows two officials in the end zone at the very end of last night's Seahawks-Packers game. One is signalling touchdown, the other is signalling an interception and touchback. The referee/crew chief didn't consult with both of these guys, but simply walked away to do a video replay. For some reason (inexplicable to anybody who saw a replay), the ruling that this crew settled upon was touchdown.

Another complaint: for some reason, Blogger has degraded the quality of its WYSIWYG editor. It no longer makes proper paragraph breaks. Now I have to do the HTML myself. :(

Life in the Big Easy

Enjoying a week in Nawlins visiting Mama Whispers and her hubby. And the growly dog and the two nice cats who hide from the growly dog. Growly dog is an annoyance. I'm really not a dog person. They are far too demanding, and I really hate that subservience act. A species of passive-aggressive sycophants.

Dogs suck. Cats rule.

Just saw the Who Dats beat the Dirty Birds, in spite of Drew Brees's attempts to throw away the game in the 4th quarter. Meh. Falcons don't look like a championship team, even if they get the #1 seed, which they should. Would rate NFC teams in this order:

Eagles
Saints
Packers
Falcons
Bears

There will not be a 6th NFC team this year.

I'm not going to bother to list the AFC teams.

NFL 2009: NFC

Um, it's a bit late to do this, but...recalling my thinking from the beginning of the
season.

NFC East: Giants, Eagles, Cowboys, Skins
NFC South: Falcons, Saints, Panthers, Bucs
NFC North: Vikings, Bears, Packers, Lions
NFC West: Cardinals, Seahawks, 49ers, Rams

Wildcards: Saints and Eagles.

From the current perspective I would flip the Falcons and Saints, but I won't
pretend I thought the Saints would start the season 6-0. Even though I thought
the Cutler trade was bad for the Bears, I didn't foresee their injuries on defense,
and they are now at best an also-ran, destined to finish behind the Packers and
Vikings.

Bill James on the BCS

More precisely, Bill James on the abomination known as the Bowl Championship Series.

James echoes the argument made by Hal S. Stern in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis of Sports against statisticians' participation in the sham known as the BCS.

Stern says:

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;
   
2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches' and sportswriters' vote;
   
3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and
   
4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.
   

James feels most strongly about 3), pointing out correctly that it makes no sense to involve statisticians when the purpose of their involvement is never defined. Are the rankings supposed to find the team that is most likely to win any head-to-head contest? Or the team that has been the most dominant over the course of the season?

Worse, as James points out, after 2001 any "computer rankings" used by the BCS have been prohibited from using data about the scoring margin when calculating rankings. The professed nobility of this decision was to keep teams (like Nebraska at the time) from running up the scores against weaker opponents.

From a learning theory standpoint (my field), this is breathtakingly stupid. Statisticians are instructed to ignore possibly the most interesting data from each and every contest. Information discarded can only make the resulting system weaker. Thus is, to choose a random example, Rutgers beats Va. Tech by 1 point while Maryland beats them by 55 points, the rating system is instructed to view each game only as "a win".

The decision to exclude margin of victory in any rankings reminds me of the decision of the IOC to ban site visits when deciding to choose the locations of future Olympics. Yes, there has been a lot of abuse of site visits, but the solution surely would have been to have more oversight and regulation of site visits, rather than jettisoning the practice entirely! How can a voter from Oceania decide between a site in Brazil and one in South Africa without being allowed to visit the locations? It's madness! Yes, it can be done, but it's silly to go down that path at all!

I would say that I'm participating in the "boycott" of the BCS, but it would be more honest to say simply that the way the system has been constructed has left me feeling that it's more of a PR exercise than a serious attempt to find out who the best team is. Regardless of who wins the Oklahoma-Florida game, you're going to be hard-pressed to convince me that the team in question is better than USC or Texas.

And that doesn't even bring up Utah, which has gone undefeated including an impressive bowl win over Alabama!

College football needed a playoff including all of the following teams: Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Penn State, Florida, and Alabama. If the ACC and Big East need to feel relevant, invite Cincinnati and Va. Tech. But really you shouldn't. You'd have been more justified inviting Boise State. Texas Tech is out for being blown out by Oklahoma.

If you are seriously interested in finding the "best" team, then at least the first seven teams should be invited. And yes, I know winning a tournament isn't the same as being the "best team" (see last year's NFL season, for example), but winning a tournament is surely better than winning a single game when participation in the game is based entirely on the arbitrary judgments of voters.

Brady on IR

From the Globe:

The Patriots just released the following statement regarding Tom Brady:

"After extensive tests this morning, it was revealed that New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady's left knee, which was injured in the first quarter of yesterday's game, will require surgery. He will be placed on injured reserve and will miss the remainder of the 2008 season."

Quick NFL picks

AFC East:
Pats 12-4
Bills 8-8
Jets 6-10
Fins 3-13

AFC North
Steelers 10-6
Browns 9-7
Ravens 7-9
Bengals 4-12

AFC South
Colts 11-5
Jags 11-5
Titans 9-7
Texans 7-9

AFC West
Chargers 12-4
Broncos 8-8
Raiders 5-11
Chiefs 3-13

NFC East
Cowboys 12-4
Eagles 10-6
Giants 10-6
Redskins 6-10

NFC North
Packers 12-4
Vikings 10-6
Bears 6-10
Lions 4-12

NFC South
Bucs 10-6
Saints 8-8
Panthers 8-8
Falcons 5-11

NFC West
Seahawks 11-5
Cardinals 7-9
49ers 6-10
Rams 4-12

Wildcard weekend
Jags over Steelers
Colts over Browns

Vikings over Seahawks
Eagles over Bucs

Divisional
Pats over Colts
Chargers over Jags (just to mix things up)

Packers over Vikings
Eagles over Cowboys

Conf. championships
Eagles over Packers
Pats over Chargers

Super Bowl
Pats over Eagles

Yeah, I noticed while filling out the playoff bracket that I'm falling into the trap of picking last year's winners by and large. So I changed a tiebreaker to dump the Giants. :)

These will look like terrible picks by the end of the sesaon, I'm sure.

Favre joins Jets

Fox Sports is reporting that Favre has been traded to the NY Jets.

I guess Assante Samuel picked a bad time to leave the AFC East.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

defending those who have done wrong

The events of the past few days have underscored in my mind the need for defense attorneys, even for people who are clearly guilty of something. It also reminds me of the Clinton impeachment.

With Bill Clinton and Bill Belichick, in both cases we had people who had clearly done something wrong. But the problem is that, once the wrongdoing is exposed, it's easy for more accusations to arise which may or may not be founded. In Clinton's case, the wrongdoing was the affair with Lewinsky. The evidence of dishonesty, however, has led to oodles of conspiracy theories as absurd as that he was behind the deaths of Vince Foster and/or Ron Brown.

In Belichick's case, the wrongdoing was illicitly taping signals of opposing coaches during games. The pile-on was the accusation that he had also taped the Rams' walk-through practice before the Super Bowl in 2001.

It is difficult to stand up and defend somebody who has already been exposed as a cheater. Indeed, it is much easier to pile on, since anybody who defended BB in the past few months was derided as a loyalist kool-aid drinker. But when I saw Belichick dismiss as absurd the notion that they taped the walk-through, it seemed true to me. Not because he seemed particularly honest at the time, but because the explanation was so mundane and dismissive. He said, basically, that it would be pointless to tape a walk-through because you would get no information out of it.

The fact that the original story in the Herald was unsourced and never was verified, and that the entire Patriots organization was so vehement about its falsity, convinced me that there was no tape out there. I wasn't convinced that there never had been a tape, but I figured BB was smart enough not to allow Bob Kraft to be so explicit if there was any chance he'd be exposed as a liar.

I figured in the worst case, Walsh would say that there had been a tape, but he didn't have a copy. But the news is even more favorable for the Pats: not only is there no tape, but everybody involved agrees that there never was a tape.

Shame on the Boston Herald for ruining the Super Bowl experience for all Patriots' fans. Publishing an unverified story two days before the Super Bowl was inexcusable. I know that the Patriots won't use this as an excuse, but I have to think that bit of hullaballoo hurt their ability to focus on the football that day.

I love my red hooded sweatshirt!

Since Bill Belichick has been taking a beating the past week, I thought I would show my support for him with an embedded video featuring Adam Sandler in the red hooded sweatshirt.

Super Bowl thoughts

There's little to say that hasn't been said elsewhere. Some points I'd like to make:

1) People who complain that Belichick left the field with 1 second left on the clock need to first acknowledge that the clock had run to zero before time had been added, and that only later was a second added. Thinking that every possible action a person makes is a revelation about that person's black heart, thinking that every gesture or word is a sign of inner contempt: these kinds of things are more revelatory about the people making the "observations" than anything else.

I was hoping the Pats would win more to just shut up the sanctimonious critics than anything else. Now these mouthbreathers are going to be with us for a while.

2) Um, KSK? You guys really need to get a grip on your hate orgy.

3) The Pats Oline played like crap. But with that in mind, the Patriots' offense was more productive than people realize. What happened is that, in the second quarter, the Pats had two sacks in a row, and that kind of immediate reinforcement of a phenomenon makes it appear more significant that it really is. The Pats gave up 5 sacks on 69 plays. The Giants gave up 3 sacks on 63 plays. That's not as much of a difference as people are making it to be.

4) Luck played a huge role. Namely, the three fumbles lost were all recovered by the Giants. And the scrambling pass from Eli to Tyree has no business being successful. The Pats had no similar lucky plays.

5) Penalties played a huge role. The Pats made a lot of stupid penalties. The Giants made few, and also got away with a couple egregious ones, most notably when Toomer pushed his defender in the face to catch a ball.

With all that said, the Pats did not play well enough to deserve to win. The luck that had carried them against the Eagles and Ravens was not there. The coaching was suspect: the refusal to attempt a FG on 4th and 13, the abandonment of the running game, and the decision to cover Burress with Hobbs in single coverage on the biggest play of the game were all bad choices. McDaniels is a good offensive coordinator, but I don't like the decision to abandon the running game altogether in favor of the short passing game. Maroney ran well in the 3rd quarter, and then only one rushing play was called in the 4th.

Basically, everything went wrong. This does not mean "good defeated evil" or that the Patriots got their comeuppance for "running up the score" or that God hates a cheater or anything like that. (If the last theory were true, we wouldn't have had 8 years of W in the White House.) Problem is that it all happened at the wrong time.

People who think the Pats peaked too early must have forgotten the game against the Jaguars, which was easy as pie.

The Pats' D is starting to get old, which makes me fairly certain next season won't go as well as this one did, esp. if Assante Sammuel leaves. The idea of Hobbs and Gay being the starting CBs scares me. They need help at linebacker, too. The only upside for next season is that the schedule will be relatively light.

For people worried about the impact: I would say this rates about the level of the loss by the Celtics in the 1985 finals. It's nowhere near as bad as the really bad Sox losses in 1978, 2003, or esp. 1986. It's not as bad as the thumping the Pats took in Super Bowl XX. It's disappointing, but I'm not of the mind that the only way to enjoy a football season is if your team wins the Super Bowl.

close calls for the Pats

I don't care.

OK, for starters, everybody who has doubts about the validity of the numerous penalty calls against the Ravens on fourth downs during the Patriots' last drive on Monday needs to watch the NFL network's rebroadcast of the game, and have the NFL's rules guru explain why it really is holding when Chris McAllister rides Randy Moss for the first 7 yards of his route, seeing as no contact at all is allowed beyond the 5-yard zone.

Anyway, the Pats are going to get the #1 seed and I don't really care if they go 16-0 or not.

Though it would be good to do so, if only to piss off Mercury Morris.

the streak

On Tuesday, October 16, the Cleveland Indians won Game 4 of the ALCS. Since then, none of the three major Boston franchises have lost.

- the Red Sox took the last three games of the ALCS, and then swept the World Series in four games.
- the Patriots have won three games in a row, as part of their 9-0 start to the season
- the Celtics have won their first 7 games of the NBA season

The latter is the most surprising. Apparently this is the best start since 1972-3.

Which is kinda weird, seeing as there was this guy named Bird who played on the team throughout the 80s, along with a few other pretty good guys.

I don't think this team is as good as the '86 Celtics. Of course, the entire league is flatter now - there are more teams and the average team is, IMO, worse. Individual players are better than they were in the 80s, but team play is a lost art.

The Celtics have the advantage of playing in the awful Eastern Conference. They won't play the Spurs or Suns until February. Of course the streak won't last that long, as they have a stretch in December where they play the Pistons and then go on a four-game West Coast road trip right after Christmas. The last game of the four is at the Lakers, and it's the second game in two days.

Of course, the Lakers might have gotten rid of Kobe by then, so who knows?

I'm talking about the Celtic's winning streak, which we all know isn't going to last, to avoid talking about another streak, which I don't want to jinx.

Patriots 24, Colts 20

Well, the Pats won the big football game and now have the inside track for the best record in the NFL and #1 seed in the playoffs.

And still, I'm not terribly pleased.

There are two things that really bothered me about the game: the penalties and the poor tackling.

The penalties were ridiculous. There was a combination of bad officiating and then the Pats starting committing stupid penalties, which made it harder to complain about the actual mistakes the officials made.

There were three pass interference calls on the Pats, two on defense, and one on offense.

There was one pass interference call on the Colts.

The first PI call on Assante Samuel seemed ticky-tack to me. The charge seemed to be that Sammuel grabbed the receiver by his jersey, which prevented the receiver from being able to catch the ball. At first glance, it seemed like the pass was uncatchable in any case. And any contact was minimal. But Sammuel did grab the jersey, so I can let this one pass.

The second PI, on Ellis Hobbs, was absolutely ridiculous. Hobbs was covering Reggie Wayne, and the pass was underthrow so Hobbs turned and went for the ball, while Wayne crashed into Hobbs while going for the ball. When I first saw the play, I thought Wayne had committed offensive PI. Hobbs had position and went for the ball. By the rulebook, that means that it's not PI when Wayne crashes into him.

The third PI was called on a Colt on a long pass to Randy Moss that he caught. Some commentators are citing this flag as evidence that the refereeing was fair. Um, guys? Don't you notice the difference between a PI flag thrown on an incomplete pass and a PI flag thrown on a completion? Let's not be children here.

And then there was the offensive PI called on Randy Moss which was completely ticky-tack, if that. Moss had one hand on the receiver but was not pushing him or moving him, and was whistled for OPI.

Some people argued that the PI calls did not change the game, but given Vinatieri's difficulty kicking the long FGs, I think it's hard to support that claim when the PIs give 37 and 40 yards respectively.

And then there was the tackling by the Patriots on Addai. God that was horrendous.

If this had been a playoff game, I would be happy with "survive and advance". But it was an ugly win and the bad officiating really tainted things.

I have to give credit to Randy Moss, who deserved the game ball. Once the Pats figured out in the 4th quarter to stop messing around and to go with their best weapon, they started moving the ball more efficiently. There was nobody on the Colts who could cover Moss, so the simple plan was the better one.

going King mode

Too many things...time to go into an incoherent, Larry King-style rant.

- OJ got away with murder, so of course he thinks armed robbery is an easy thing!

- I'm sorry, there just is no moral line between "using your own cameraman to steal signals" and "using the network's cameramen to steal signals". Yes, rules should be followed, but enough of the moral outrage already|

- Buffy is tired of moving. She needs a permanent home.

- All those websites that have decided I speak French? Stop it! (I'm looking at you, Google..)

- Anyway, while the cats were staying at the Finsbury park flat of Dr. J and his red-head, the good doc tested his stealth badger camera in the flat to track cat movement. Some pics will be forthcoming.

- Bush cannot leave office soon enough. I'm tired of the idea that winning a war is done just like any other PR campaign. And the media fall right in line, every time, sucking up to General Petraeus on schedule. Stop it! The war is still a stupid and immoral idea. The fact that a temporary increase in force (and unsustainable increase in force, in fact) can be used to create statistics indicating a decrease in violence (as long as the stats are doctored sufficiently, and the media don't examine the story closely, which of course they won't) does not in any way justify staying in Iraq.

Whether Iraq becomes a peaceful, democratic society or not is not something that further American military presence in Iraq can affect in a positive way. Best idea? Get out. See Vietnam for an example.

I was refreshed to see Alan Greenspan acknowledge the elephant in the room: this war is about oil and always has been. That's always been true. I'm sorry, but it's so obvious that it's hard to stomach the steadfast refusal of mainstream media outlets to address this issue.

Look, oil prices have doubled since the invasion of Iraq. That fact is caused in part by the decrease in oil production from Iraq. It's also caused in part by the fact that the Bush family is essentially a subsidiary of the Saudi royal family.

Not only are oil prices going up, energy company profits are zooming up. Net profits at ExxonMobil, for example, have doubled during the war years. This is a fact that needs to be pointed out in any discussion of the war. Right now regular taxpayers are paying for a war (or, more precisely, funding debt to support a war) in order for Exxon to double their profits.

When discussing the American foreign policy, it's important to keep an eye on the ball. It is not in the interest of the country as a whole to do everything one industry wants it to do, no matter how important that sector of the economy is.

Let's take on these ratfuckers directly.

Michael Vick is turning his life to God

Well isn't that special!

Super Bowl in London

Party at the Walkabout.

I'm in.

There's nothing more American than seeing the Super Bowl at an Australian-themed bar in London, is there?

Colts 38 Patriots 34

*sigh*

The run is over. Winning two in a row on the road against the Chargers and the Colts was a bit too much for this damaged Pats team. On the whole a good season - a better season ultimately than the seasons of all but two other NFL teams. But when it mattered, the middle of the Pats' D simply could not stop the Colts' passing game. And so the Pats get to watch the Super Bowl from home.

Would the Pats have had these difficulties if they'd had Rodney Harrison and Junior Seau? If they'd had both of them, I don't think so. Seau isn't quite the LB he was ten years ago, but he's still a very intelligent player and was doing a great job in the middle before his injury. And Rodney Harrison would have been a Pro Bowler this year if he hadn't had his two injuries. The second one is particularly galling for Pats fans, since he had just come back from the broken scapula and then the stupid Titans hit his knee with a possibly illegal block. (The Pats maintain it was illegal based on the direction the block was happening.)

And the other annoying injury, one that doesn't quite get enough mention, is whatever the hell is wrong with Brady. Brady watchers noticed that he was inexplicably missing wide open receivers time and time again in the second half of the season. And of course, he was on the injury list every week. Kinda of a good hint that he's actually injured. Sure, Coach B is not above messing around with the injury list, but in this case I think something was actually going on.

Injuries are a part of football, and the Colts also had some to deal with. Bob Sanders had just come back from a serious injury and had revitalized their defense, and then in the game itself Peyton Manning clearly injured his thumb, to the point he was telling his backup to "Get ready".

Super Bowl preview:
Colts are going to slaughter the Bears. Give the TD, they'll probably win by more than 10 points. Super Bowls are almost always blowouts, and there's little reason to think this year will be different. If the Bears weren't missing two key defenders, I think they could stop the Colts offense - at least slow it down about as well as the Ravens did. But could they move the ball against the Colts?

That's still a question. The Bears have a good running game, and that may in theory be a problem for the Colts. But the Colts run defense has been much better in the playoffs.

And then there's the Bears' passing game. "Erratic" is too kind a word. But it's easy to make fun of Rex Grossman and forget that he has at least one very good receiver.

And thus endeth the attempt to convince myself that the Bears have any chance here. The Colts' offense is firing on all cylinder and I don't think the Bears are going to be able to bring enough of a pass rush to slow it down. Also, the Colts have been on the cusp of winning the Super Bowl for a few years now and they really want it bad. They are going to be highly motivated and will likely play mistake-free football.

When all is said and done, the Pats did the Colts a huge favor by taking down the one team that would have slaughtered them - the Chargers. So this is the Colts' year.

I might not stay up for the whole thing. I can't root for the Colts because, well, they're the Colts. And I can't root for the Bears because I still remember Super Bowl XX and because, well, I have a bet riding on the Colts.

Patriots 24 Chargers 21

I really didn't think the Patriots were going to win this game. San Diego was beating them up on both sides of the ball, and had cruised to an easy 14-3 lead. And then the Pats did one of their patented 2-minute drives to get a TD right before the half. Suddenly, after 30 minutes of football completely dominated by the Chargers, they were only up by 4 points.

Then, because I didn't want to be riding the N18 back to Harrow to get home at 3 a.m., I left the sports bar. I follwed the end of the game on a sopcast feed. Wow. Marty Schottenheimer really lived up to his reputation yet again. He's a great assembler of talent and great at winning regular season games, but just cannot win in the postseason. He's not good enough - it's that simple. There's no way the Pats should even have had a chance of tieing the game at the end, much less winning it with a FG. Given how thoroughly the Charger running game was dominating the Pats, how did the Chargers only score 7 points in the second half? Usually a team with a dominating running game just keeps running the ball, controlling the clock, and beating the other team to death. The final score should have been something like San Diego 35, New England 13.

Wow. It's weird watching the Pats have this run. As a Red Sox fan, I'm used to the jinx being on my team. Now with the current version of the Pats, they seem to have an anti-jinx, whereby they repeatedly win games that they don't quite dominate.

Cool.