This blog has always been known for its timely analysis

Which is why, per a request in an Anonymous comment from almost two weeks ago, I'm covering ESPN's Jackie MacMullan's SCORCHING HOT TAEK regarding The Incident from the AFC Championship Game Wherein the Patriots Were Found to be Using Underinflated Footballs.  That is my super clever and catchy name for this "scandal."  I hope you enjoy it.  I couldn't think of anything shorter, or involving the suffix -gate or a reference to a political "scandal" from the last couple years involving an embassy in Libya.

By the way, let me also be abundantly clear about one thing: while I despise the Patriots, I don't give a flying rat's cunt about this whole thing.  I just can't bring myself to care.  The Patriots were obviously the best team in the AFC from Halloween onward.  Beyond that, as that awesome story Brad Johnson told about paying guys off to tamper with the game balls before the Raiders-Bucs Super Bowl demonstrates, this shit probably happens all the time.  Honestly: who really gives a fuck?  Fuck the Patriots, fuck the NFL, and most of all, fuck the 24 hour sports news cycle that's obsessed with the NFL.  Now let's go out there and write this dumb post.

We don't know for certain yet whether Bill Belichick had anything to do with the deflation of 11 of the 12 footballs 

This was just another asinine facet to this whole thing--the repeated reporting that it was 11 of 12 footballs.  Not all the footballs.  Not almost all the footballs.  Not all but one.  Not "The Patriots were using a large number of underinflated balls."  No--let me break out my Easterbrook impersonation and point out that 11 out of 12 is HYPERSPECIFIC and we don't need that much fucking information.  Again, this is what happens when an NFL non-story breaks during Pro Bowl weeks.  Sure, there are dozens of NBA and NHL games going on, but we need the Bottom Line ticker to let us know exactly what fraction of the balls were tampered with.  I swear, the retards who inhabit this country love the NFL so much you could get great ratings on a 30 minute show that was just Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen going back and forth about what their sources have told them about that 12th ball that was actually within the league's rules.

the New England Patriots used in their trouncing of the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game. In fact, we may never know.

We sure won't.  Because this will all be forgotten about about four seconds after the Super Bowl kicks off.

Regardless of what the league determines, the Patriots' coach already has been declared guilty in the court of public opinion, 

By the way, as we go through this piece, you'll discover that Jackie Mac says the league should come down HAHHHHHD on the Pats if they are guilty.  This is a hot taek in so many ways-- 1) she all but conceded in her first three sentences that we'll never really know, therefore more or less saying that there shouldn't be any stiff punishment, but even better, 2) anyone who has seen her on PTI knows that just like every other knuckle-dragging sportswriter from New England, she's an unashamed homer who wears her Pats-loving heart on her sleeve.  Meaning, of course, that this whole article is really just a trolling of other Pats fans who she knows will be totally offended by her position, thus generating BUZZ and CONTROVERSY and PAGEVIEWS.  Somewhere, Mark Shapiro is smiling and nodding.

his football brilliance superseded only by his football arrogance.

Such a deft juxtaposition.  Someone give this woman her own TV show.

Consider this tweet from Hall of Famer Jerry Rice:

11 of 12 balls under-inflated can anyone spell cheating!!! #Just Saying

First of all, Jerry, ask your kids about how hashtags work.  (Lol!  Old people am I right?!)  Second of all, wow, blazing taek right there.  Thanks for the input.

Rice has no skin in New England's game. 

Incredible analysis here.  "This is a very simple  story, but it is also a huge story in the world of the NFL.  Here's someone from that world who has no connection to the Patriots, AND HE'S WEIGHING IN ON THE STORY WITH HIS VERY BASIC OPINION.  Marvel at it, everyone."

He's not a former Raven or Colt, although he did play his final season in Seattle. 

If you see some hipster kid this weekend with a bad mustache, a SuperSonics hat and a Jerry Rice Seahawks jersey, punch him in the face for me please.

He is a football legend with an impeccable résumé and he won't be the first or last to cast aspersions on the football team in Foxborough, Massachusetts.

Again, here's Jackie: "Note that this person has an opinion.  Really makes you think, doesn't it?"

On the surface, knowingly tampering with footballs just minutes before (or during?) the AFC Championship Game in which your team is heavily favored seems, in the words of former Patriots safety Rodney Harrison, "laughable.''

Yeah, there's a guy who knew how to cheat the RIGHT way.  None of this getting caught for him, at least for most of his career.

It is also incredibly audacious, stupid and paranoid.

This was a single sentence paragraph in the article as published.

Bill Plaschke demands his royalty check.

Also, if the Patriots did this on purpose, it's a lot of things.

But I'm pretty sure it wasn't fueled by paranoia.

It's almost as ludicrous as videotaping the defensive signals of opposing teams after the league sent a memo specifically forbidding the practice and warning there would be serious repercussions if the decree was ignored.

This is more catnip thrown by a New Englander at all the Massholes out there reading this on their phones during their lunch break at the tuna cannery.  "Hey everyone... remember when the Patriots cheated this other time?  That got you good and riled up I'll bet.  Mmm hmm."

Spygate, Deflategate. Connect the dots and it appears to be more of the same, a haughty coach obsessed with winning who will do anything to get an edge -- and will gleefully tweak the league office in the process.

Fuck Belichick, but the guy has balls.  I'm almost starting to like him.

Therein lies Belichick's problem. A man who has made football his life's work, whose reverence for the game and its history is well-documented, 

I love the idea that doing anything to win is somehow not in alignment with loving the game and knowing about its history.  Why, it's almost like he wants to win so he can be a part of that history some day!  Madness!

has forever forfeited the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his own integrity. 

Guarantee you he doesn't give a shit.

Earlier this month, 85-year-old Don Shula, the winningest coach in NFL history and the only one to oversee an undefeated season, 

Barf

with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, 

Oh, is that when it was?  I'm only reminded of that every goddamn 10 minutes during all NFL broadcasts in October/November when there are only a couple of undefeated teams left.

was asked about New England's coach. The congenial Shula replied: "Beli-cheat?"

RAZOR SHARP.  WOW.  EVEN AT 85, THE GUY HAS A FIRM GRASP ON SHITTY PUNS.  THIS IS ALMOST AS CRAZY AS THE TIME JERRY RICE POINTED OUT THAT CHEATING IS THE SAME THING AS CHEATING.

It spoke volumes about the perception of New England's resident football genius. Shula is a man of character and credibility. 

Oh my God.  Holy shit.  No, he's not.  He's not Teddy Roosevelt.  He's not Roberto Clemente.  He's just a guy who was an awesome football coach a while ago.  Of COURSE he's going to shit on Belichick.  That's what all retired legends in every field do when asked about the then-current legends in the making in that field.

His words hold weight, far more than a blustery Ray Lewis embarking on a rant dismissing Tom Brady's career because of the tuck rule. That made no sense and had no merit.

Hahahahha.  I didn't hear that.  That's pretty great, though.  Good for Ray.  I like that taek.

This deflation controversy is a different case altogether. 

Right--one is a case of potential circumvention of league rules.  The other is a case where the league's referees probably did correctly enforce the league's rules, even though those rules are terrible.  Where am I going with this contrast?  I don't know, but fuck Tom Brady.

The Colts became suspicious about the footballs and asked the referees to check them during the game. An investigation was launched, and there is tangible evidence the balls were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what the league mandates.

2 POUNDS?  ARE YOU SURE IT WASN'T 1.7 POUNDS?  GET ED WERDER TO CAMP OUT OUTSIDE OF JIM CALDWELL'S HOUSE UNTIL WE GET SOME ANSWERS.

Obviously there are myriad unanswered questions. Were the balls properly checked by the officials before the game? Who monitored the Patriots' footballs on the sideline? When, if at all, were the balls that appeared underinflated then discarded or re-inflated? Is there any tangible evidence that someone on New England's sideline tampered with the balls?

That last one is a pretty relevant question, which I hate to admit, because the other three are so mind-numbingly stupid and 24 hour news cycle-y that I want to throw myself down a flight of stairs.  WHEN WERE THE BALLS UN-INFLATED OR RE-INFLATED OR SOMETHING?  WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE COW THAT THE BALLS WERE EVENTUALLY MADE OUT OF?

Let's dispatch one ridiculous notion: The deflated balls are not why the Patriots are playing in the Super Bowl next weekend. New England completely dismantled Indianapolis in -- as a certain coach likes to say -- every phase of the game.

A little nod and a wink to those Masshole ESPN readers I've been talking about.  "Hey, just so you guys know, I love Belichick and the Pats just as much as you do.  Stay with me here, I'm just trying to get paid."

In a perfect football world, the Patriots 

would not exist, or would go 0-16 every year.

would be riding high in the wake of a surge of creativity that has set them apart in recent weeks.

Nope, I like mine better.

The Brady-to-Edelman-to-Amendola touchdown, the four-offensive-linemen formation and the touchdown pass to tackle Nate Solder were all evidence that New England had rediscovered its innovative, edgy persona.

Hey, cheating is often innovative and edgy too.  Let's not rule out the possibility of having it both ways.

Why can't the coach trust his players' talents and his own intellect and lean on the excellence of the organization 

Fuck the organization and fuck Bob Kraft.  There is no Patriot Way.  It's a fucking team, and it will employ cheaters and murderers just as readily as any other team.  It's had a lot of success recently because of Belichick and Brady.  If those two guys died in their sleep tonight, they'd lose the Super Bowl by 30 and be irrelevant for the next 15 years.  Let's stop patting "the organization" on the back for having generational talents (one of whom they stumbled ass-backwards into employing) holding the two most important jobs on a football team.

he has so painstakingly built into a sustainable football juggernaut? 

Because he likes winning.  Article over.

It's like a prizefighter pummeling his opponent for six straight rounds, then feeling compelled to throw a sucker punch after the bell has sounded. Why? You had the fight won.

No, it's really more like a prizefighter paying someone to poison his opponent's food before the bout even though the opponent was much weaker to begin with.  See how my analogy works and yours is terrible?

I'll say it again: There's no concrete evidence yet that Belichick or the Patriots did anything wrong. 

Yeah, we got it.  Thanks.

But even the most ardent New England fan has to concede that when 11 of the 12 balls are discovered to be deflated, that's a mighty interesting coincidence.

You're doing that thing that all bad sportswriters do where you just start wandering off and either restating your old points or not making any new ones.  Just finish up already.

If the NFL finds the Patriots culpable (and that is still a big "if" at this point),

HOLY FUCK, THAT'S THE EIGHTH TIME YOU'VE REMINDED US.  WE GET IT.

it should lay the hammer down. If Belichick turns out to be a repeat offender in the skirting of the league rules, he should be suspended for the Super Bowl.

MOLTEN LAVA HOT.  BE CAREFUL EVERYONE.

It's not about the deflated balls. It's not about how much of an advantage (if any) it provided the Patriots or Tom Brady.

Actually, had that laughably impossible outcome occurred, it would have been about exactly that advantage.  What the hell else would it be about?  The Patriots having insulted the league's officially licensed ball and pump manufacturers?

It's about the integrity of the sport 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The integrity of the NFL

Hahahahah

That's wonderful

I'm crying

and the arrogance of a football coach who, if guilty, will have once again shown that he thinks he is bigger than the game.

Well, he probably does think that, and it's probably true.

For years the Patriots have fostered an "Us Against the World" mentality, whether real or manufactured (usually it was the latter).

It's always the latter.  Drew Magary put it best in his Deadspin weekly column today: "The world doesn’t give a shit. Most of the world is just trying to fucking eat. Some farmer in Burundi isn’t gonna be like, “The Pats won? Well, they showed me!”"  I don't adore Magary like some do (enough about your goddamn kids, holy shit, enough), but that's a pretty great line.

No one was better at inventing slights to motivate his team than Harrison, who is convinced Belichick and the Patriots will utilize the furor surrounding this controversy to their advantage.

No they won't.  That is a dumb, cliched narrative.  They will instead just ignore it and go out and try to outplay Seattle, same as they would have if the big story this week was that Spygate was a complete invention by the league and never happened.

"I can tell you, this is the last thing Seattle needs,'' Harrison said recently. "Those guys in that New England locker room are pumped. After all the hard work they've put in, after all they've accomplished, after all they've done, to have people doubt them?

Fuck yourself, Rodney.

"They're taking that stuff personally. They're fired up. Add the fact Seattle was favored in the Super Bowl, and look out.''

Yeah, and almost immediately after the books opened, the line swung around to favor New England, where it has stayed.  THAT'S THE LAST THING THE PATRIOTS NEED.  THE SEAHAWKS ARE PISSED OFF.  IT'S THEM AGAINST THE WORLD.

He's right. There's nothing like controversy to band a team together and provide them with the extra resolve to prove their detractors wrong.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz God I hate football culture and the journalists who enable it.

But here's the hitch: Even if the Patriots beat the Seahawks 60-0 in Super Bowl XLIX, the win will be declared a tainted one by many. 

I know, it's going to be so fun to use this complete non-story as ammunition against dumb Patriots fans for decades to come.  "Sure, eventually they won another Super Bowl without being able to illegally tape other teams' practices, but that's only because they found a DIFFERENT way to cheat.  Smh."  (Last part should only be used if you are giving your snarky anti-Patriots hot taek in an online environment.)  Seriously, it's going to be great.

The noise will continue, and the chants of "Beli-cheat" will endure.

As they should, as long as we all promise to brainstorm a better and more insulting nickname.

The coach probably won't care, but it's not just his legacy that will be stained. His players also are saddled with the perception that something far more unseemly than their preparation and sacrifice were the reasons for their success.

I'm sure they'll really care while admiring their Super Bowl rings and cashing their bonus checks.

And that's the most deflating reality of all.

OH WOW.  I spent all this time making fun of this article, and then she drops a KILLER closing line on me.  God, I look like a fool now.  Should have just turned this post into a bunch of deflated/soft/mishandled balls (haha balls) jokes.

Oh my God.

Someone, anyone, please punch this man in the face.  (By "this man" I don't mean Florio, I mean D. Orlando Ledbetter, president of the Pro Football Writers Association.  Although Florio could probably use a good face punching too so if that's convenient feel free to handle it.)

“The Pro Football Writers of America, the official voice of pro football writers fighting and promoting for access to NFL personnel to best serve the public, is extremely disappointed in the lack of meaningful access to Seattle running back Marshawn Lynch at the Super Bowl XLVIII media day on Tuesday,” the PFWA said in a statement issued by president D. Orlando Ledbetter.

“Several of our long-standing and high profile members were appalled by Mr. Lynch’s conduct and refusal to answer any questions. We find the statement that by the league that ‘Players are required to participate and he participated’ to be an affront to our membership. However, we are encouraged that the league will continue to closely monitor this situation.”

DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE

Your move, BBWAA.

Brief MMTMQR: Good Players Only Play for Good Teams, Everyone Knows That

I wish I had more time to make a longer post. Unfortunately I don't right now. But I do have time to briefly marvel at the levels of retardery to which Gregggggggggggggggggggggg (get it?) will stoop.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back NFL MVP: I gave up complaining that the MVP award always goes to a quarterback or running back -- 90 percent of football action occurs away from the ball!

And with players who were undrafted and played their college ball at NAIA schools.

-- and created my own award in 2001. Three years ago, an impressive-looking trophy was added, along with a presentation on media day at the Super Bowl.

Number of recipients who have not been creeped out/annoyed by this process: zero.

"SportsCenter," show the trophy presentation live next year!

Ah, two of ESPN's crappiest institutions in one place at one time. I can only imagine.

This year's finalists were Gary Brackett and Dallas Clark of Indianapolis, Jahri Evans and Darren Sharper of New Orleans; Nick Mangold and Darrelle Revis of Jersey/B; and Sidney Rice and Kevin Williams of Minnesota.

Are you ready for the good stuff?

Only players from the championship round were eligible: My reasoning is that if you would wear the mantle of Most Valuable, you better have created some value.

And again.

Only players from the championship round were eligible: My reasoning is that if you would wear the mantle of Most Valuable, you better have created some value.

And one last time.

Only players from the championship round were eligible: My reasoning is that if you would wear the mantle of Most Valuable, you better have created some value.

Here's a very short list of non QB/RBs who, according to Gregg, did not create value this year:

Andre Johnson
Ryan Clady
Vernon Davis
DeMarcus Ware
Haloti Ngata
Nnamdi Asomugha

Your own in the comments! Oh my God, this man is so fucking dumb.

In addition to watching way too much film of these players, I consulted experts. My oldest son's high school football coach, James Collins,

Ah, presumably coach of the official son of TMQ, the WASPily-named Spenser.

favored Evans, the league's best offensive lineman. Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders favored Revis, the league's best corner. K.C. Joyner, the Football Scientist -- who actually reviews every snap of every game; he is a brave man --

As opposed to Gregg, who turns on the game, waits for a blitz to not work so he can write about that, notes which coach is wearing more clothing so he can write about that if the team loses, and then goes back to his West Wing DVDs.

favored Clark, because of his disruptive impact on opposing secondaries. Unlike many Pro Bowl voters, all three of my insider sources pay close attention to actual NFL performance, as opposed to hype.

The Pro Bowl voters are a group of questionable intelligence. For my money, though, they ain't got shit on Mr. "If the team that lost on a last second field goal had just run up the middle instead of throwing an incomplete pass on a play with 14 minutes left in the 4th quarter, they would have won because the clock would have expired before the final field goal!" over here.

In conclusion: maybe next year you'll be eligible to receive a dinky trophy from Gregg Easterbrook (in what must be a painfully awkward ceremony) if you just get out there and create some value, Charles Woodson!

WMTMQR: Oh, The Irony

I had been stretching to find material for a post tonight. Clark Judge of CBSSportsline wrote a real piece of crap about five NFL teams he boldly suggests will make a run at the playoffs in 2008 after not finishing 2007 with a winning record. All of them were 8-8 or 7-9 last year, and have plenty of talent on their rosters. Yawn. And Jemele Hill checked in with her usual piece of garbage minus the race card. But neither of those pieces really warranted a full breakdown.

So imagine my elation when I stumbled upon the final TMQ column of the year. I'll say this much- you can't fault Easterbrook for not having any balls. This is a guy who regularly serves up some of the worst football analysis you'll ever read, and yet here he is, devoting an entire column to the perceived missteps of his colleagues. There is so much wrong here, I can't even begin to cover it all right now. I might pick up wherever I leave off for a separate post tomorrow, but here's a sampling that should have you shaking your head in anger for the time being.

How hard it is to defend the predictors Easterbrook names (many of which are regular punching bags here at FireJay), I cannot fully put into words. But this guy is such a pompous douche that I have to go through with the post anyways. That's life I guess. You spend 99% of it talking about how much [X] sucks, and then in the end, it turns out that [X] really isn't that bad when you compare it to what an asshole [Y] is.

Peter King predicted, "It'll be stunning if the Chargers can dig their way out of this horrible web of mismanagement to finally be a playoff factor next season."

They were 5-5 at one point. I'd have to say that their ensuing 8 game win streak (including a win over Indy in the RCA Dome in the divisional round) was indeed "stunning."

Ron Borges, then of The Boston Globe, predicted that Jeff Garcia, Patrick Kerney and Leonard Davis were "free agents to avoid." All made the Pro Bowl.

We'll see how much Dallas/Seattle enjoys paying Davis's/Kerney's contract in 2012 when he's 34/35 years old. I know, the teams can always just cut them. But good chunks of those contracts are guaranteed. By this logic, the contract the Giants gave Barry Zito in 2006 would have been a great idea had he won 16 games in 2007. Oh, and Jeff Garcia apparently looks and smells like a rat.

"JT the Brick" of MSNBC predicted, "The Oakland Raiders are back. They are drastically improved."

They won two more games than they did in 2006. Their point differential improved by 50. Six of their losses were by a touchdown or less (compared to four in 2006). Only three were by more than two touchdowns (compared to six). Do they still suck? Yes. Did they suck a whole lot less? Even as someone who fucking detests the Raiders, I have to say yes. To be fair, "JT the Brick" is still a shitheaded nickname.

Brick also predicted that, in early 2008, Bill Parcells would become coach of the Giants or Chargers; neither team changed coaches, and Parcells went to the front office of the Dolphins.

Take that, JT. Idiot. You were only able to predict that Parcells would return to a prominent role with a team, and almost the exact time he would do so. Way to dick up exactly which team and role it would be.

Andrew Perloff said Jay Cutler will "lead the Broncos back to the playoffs."

The Broncos' struggles had nothing to do with Cutler, who had a very good year (88.1 QB rating). Maybe being ranked 30th against the run and 28th in scoring defense were slightly larger factors in their struggles.

Then there were the Jake Plummer predictions. ESPN.com's Jeremy Green speculated, "If Plummer ends up in Houston, he might have to sit behind David Carr." Plummer did not come back, and Carr wasn't in Houston either.

That prediction is not incorrect at all; it couldn't be much less incorrect. That's a quadruple negative.

Then there were the Rex Grossman predictions. "There is no question the Bears are committed to Grossman as their starting quarterback next season," Pompei of Sporting News predicted. The Bears benched Grossman twice, starting three different quarterbacks.

Grossman started the season as QB. After he was benched, they gave him another chance. Sounds like at least some level of horribly misguided commitment to me.

Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.com predicted, "Grossman will be fine. No way does he throw another 20 interceptions." Grossman threw only seven interceptions -- because most of the time, he was benched.

He was obviously not "fine" overall, but if you project his totals out to a full season, he'd have thrown about 15 picks. Just saying.

Vic Carucci of NFL.com predicted the Super Bowl would pair the Patriots and Eagles; Philadelphia did not make the playoffs.

Nice one, Miss Cleo. Way to only pick one of the two Super Bowl teams before the season started.

The Boston Globe ran five sets of Super Bowl predictions, none of them mentioning the Giants.

Every other newspaper in the world totally saw the whole Giants thing coming. Where were the Globe's writers when we all agreed it was inevitable? Shooting up HGH with Rodney Harrison? Losers.

Dan Shaughnessy of the Globe predicted San Diego over New England in the AFC Championship Game.

How preposterous! There was no way that could have happened at all. It's not like San Diego had more scoring drives than New England, while being without their two biggest offensive weapons due to injury and playing a QB with a shredded knee.

USA Today offered eight dueling Super Bowl predictions, none of them involving the Giants.

Hey USA Today (and the Boston Globe), if your hand is bigger than your face, it means you've got a tiny penis. *Slap* I can't believe you fell for that!

None of ESPN television's "Sunday Countdown" crew -- Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Chris Mortensen, Keyshawn Johnson, Mike Ditka or Emmitt Smith -- predicted the Giants would reach the Super Bowl.

Hey guys, there's a dickfor on the ceiling. (pause) Well I don't know, maybe you should ask your sister! Everyone get a load of these people who didn't think the Giants would make the Super Bowl. Can you believe they didn't see that coming? Talk about obvious.

Of the 22 predicted Super Bowl participants, 12 failed to make postseason, and no Pro Football Weekly analyst predicted the Giants would reach the Super Bowl.

Might as well ask them to try to bite their own ears!

ESPN The Magazine ("Published on Earth, the Planet") predicted a Super Bowl of Chargers over Cowboys.

Not even close! (Actually, somewhat close.)

None of the four dueling Super Bowl predictions inside The Mag mentioned the Giants.

OK, I'm running out of jokes to play on stupid people. Maybe gluing a quarter to the ground and seeing if they try really hard to pick it up?

Then there was the astonishing ESPN.com meta-forecast. Your faithful servants at ESPN.com offered no fewer than 16 dueling complete NFL forecasts for division winners, wild-card teams, Coach of the Year, MVPs and the like. And along the lines of the dog that didn't bark, if you check the link to the meta-forecast, what team name don't you see?

This is getting ridiculous. Other things Gregg Easterbrook wants to point out weren't predicted correctly by pundits:

George Mason in 2006 Final Four
Cardinals win 2006 World Series
Warriors knock of Mavericks in 2007 NBA playoffs
US 1980 Olympic hockey teams beats USSR
Appalachian St. beats Michigan

Honestly, the odds of the Giants winning 3 straight road playoff games weren't that much worse than any of those events happening. And I know Pittsburgh did exactly that just two years ago, but history still says its nearly impossible.

Trust Him, He Used to Run the Economy: In February 2004, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, praised adjustable-rate and interest-only mortgages, the gimmick loans that triggered the 2007 default wave. In October 2004, Greenspan said a sudden drop in housing values was "most unlikely."

I hate to play this card, but honestly... hey asshole, let's see you do a better job of managing one of the world's largest economies. Greenspan couldn't have been more wrong, but his words were molded by the politics of reelection. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's probably a pretty intelligent guy when his behavior isn't being dictated by the selfish powers that be.

Sports Illustrated forecast a Rose Bowl of Michigan versus Rutgers; neither made the BCS. The magazine forecast Ohio State would not make the BCS; it made the national title game.

Rutgers? That's bad. Michigan? They came within a decent offensive showing against OSU of making that happen. OSU themselves? Well, they probably deserved to be in the BCS... probably. Maybe. They certainly didn't deserve to be in the title game. And if they played Missouri 10 times on a neutral field, who do you think wins 6? I say it's a tough call. Of course, Hawaii apparently didn't deserve to be in the BCS either.

Bad College Predictions No. 2: "West Virginia is certain to win, and they will play in the BCS championship:" Doug Flutie on ABC, a few hours before No. 2 West Virginia lost to 4-7 Pittsburgh, forfeiting its shot at the BCS title.

Way to not see that coming, Elf-man.

Note: After West Virginia kept its first team on the field and kept throwing deep despite a 31-point, late-third-quarter lead against woeful Syracuse, reader Peggy McMahon of Rockport, Maine, e-mailed me to predict the football gods would exact vengeance on the Mountaineers. And yea, verily, it came to pass.

Hmm. Those Gods must've missed LSU throwing the ball deep numerous times during the second half of a 58-10 win over Louisiana Tech on November 10th. Unless you count their loss to Arkansas as "revenge," which you probably shouldn't, considering it didn't keep them out of the SEC or BCS title games.

Profootballtalk.com forecast the Giants to finish last in the NFC East. Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated forecast the Giants to finish 6-10. The New York Times predicted the Giants would "take a step backward" in 2007. Eric Allen of ESPN foretold, "The Giants are a team that could disappoint." Don Pierson, whose MSNBC column is called "Ask the NFL Expert," forecast Jersey/A to finish last and added, "The Giants are having a hard time convincing anyone they are on the way up."

Bill Williamson, on MSNBC at the start of the season: Jersey/A "cannot go to the Super Bowl. The Giants have to just hope their quarterback progresses and there isn't a mutiny of the coaching staff. The Super Bowl is too much to ask for."

Dude, stop. You're fucking killing me.

Gregg Easterbrook, Tuesday Morning Quarterback: "I am not sold on the Giants." Spoken on "The Max Kellerman Show," November 2007.

Oh. Well alright then.

I Can't Believe I'm About To Agree With Gregg Easterbrook

[Side note to start off the week- Reader Extra Participation Friday kind of bombed last week. What happened? Too obscure of a topic? Nobody likes me anymore? It's that, isn't it. Good to see that my life has transitioned from having no real life friends to having no internet friends. Anyways, I'm declaring Blanco112 this week's winner for the following shitty athlete sales pitch:

"One more thing to consider when it comes to Kris Benson: the possibility that he cheats on Anna has got to buy him a few extra years on his contract, right?"

Only if he signs with a team that plays in New York. Anyways, I'm hoping we get a better turnout next week. It's fun for everyone. Come on. Please?]

Anyways, like I was saying, I can't believe I'm about to agree with the official TMQ of FireJay. But given that I'm doing so in the context of pointing out that Peter King is a slimeball, I think it's worth it. King's thoughts on one of his co-workers:

Tiki Barber does not miss football. He does not regret his decision to retire, even though the Giants have made the Super Bowl.

It's true. You can choose not to believe me if you'd like, but you'd be wrong.

Some of you may know that I work with Barber, the former great Giants' running back, at NBC, and you'll think I'm only writing this because I'm either protecting him or I believe a lie he is telling me. Neither is correct. But I understand why you would feel that way.

I like Barber, and I've spent much of the fall defending him to staunch Giants fans who are mad as hell at him for criticizing coach Tom Coughlin on his way out the Giants' door last winter and for questioning the leadership of quarterback Eli Manning last summer. My feeling all along has been that once Barber signed to work for NBC, he was no longer a member of the Giants, and he was obligated to give his honest opinion about all 32 teams in the NFL, including the one he knew best, the Giants. When NBC signs your check, it's not a disloyal thing to criticize the coach you used to play for if you feel the criticism is legitimate, and it's not a disloyal thing to say Manning is a lousy leader if that's how you feel. It's not only not disloyal. It's honorable.

The part about "not disloyal" (now that's some clunky diction!) might be true. I mean, I guess once Barber left the Giants he wasn't technically obligated to show them any respect, because they weren't signing a paycheck for him anymore. But honorable? Honorable? I admit that as a 23 year old who has held all of one full-time and four or five part-time jobs in his life, I may not be the foremost expert on professionalism. Still, I'm pretty sure that trashing your old teammates and coach unsolicited on national TV less than a year after you all were part of the same organization is dishonorable as hell. Put more simply, it's sleazy. It's low. It's unprofessional. And in the context of providing analysis, it's basically irrelevant. Yes, Barber's role at NBC is to give his opinions about certain aspects of the NFL. But I hardly think his personal perceptions and biases relating to former teammates' personalities fall within the boundaries of that role. Giving an opinion about whether or not Team X has a good offensive line is one thing; giving an opinion about Player Y's personal makeup and behind-closed-doors persona is entirely another.

The relative lack of outcry about Barber's comments indicates that perhaps media consumers are attracted to the idea of an "inside scoop" about current players and coaches. Let's air out that (alleged) dirty laundry! Hell, what's that new game show that NBC just started last week? "Lie Detector Secrets That Ruin Families?" America loves that kind of shit. And from his professional standpoint, King certainly seems to think that "insight" of this sort is a valuable part of NBC's coverage. But neither of those opinions/implicit opinions make it a fucking "honorable" act to badmouth your former colleagues.

Next time you switch companies, spend your first lunch with your new co-workers talking about what a huge group of assholes your former employers were. See how it goes over. I understand that this analogy doesn't really replicate what Barber did, because he switched fields and became part of the media. His new job entails nothing but talking about his old job which is clearly not the same as being a forklift driver at Company A and then switching over to be a forklift driver at Company B. But the spirit of the comparison is fair, in my mind. What's the point of what Barber said earlier in the season? To establish why the Giants struggled at the end of last season, and the start of this one? He could have said it differently. He could have said nothing at all and stayed away as a matter of principle. It's not just the fact that it's a jerkoff thing to do; it's the fact that Barber has no way of knowing if maybe he wasn't the problem instead of Manning and Coughlin. I know he put up great numbers on the field, but maybe there was something about his presence off the field that slowed the team down. Do I know this as a fact? Of course not. But since there's no way to tell, why bother to guess? Leave the subject alone, and stick to commentary that doesn't slander your former co-workers.

Now, I'm not saying Barber can never badmouth his former team for any reason. It's his claims about personality-related stuff that I take issue with. If he wanted to say that Coughlin was consistently outschemed by opposing coaches, or that Manning was making bad reads when he dropped back to pass, that would be totally different. At least those two examples are less subjective and also things that couldn't possibly be Barber's fault.

In conclusion: honorable? Fuck that. Peter, please go kidnap Brett Favre and take him to live with you in a cabin in the middle of North Dakota for the rest of your days. If you want to grab Tom Brady on your way out there, that would be fine too.

If you're confused, the title of this post refers to the fact that Easterbrook has been bitching about Barber and his big mouth all season long. I guess I have to say I agree. I don't, however, agree with his claims that coaches would rather minimize margins of defeat in playoff games than try to win them or that successful running backs avoid looking at potential tacklers.

On a less angry note, (cue zany circus music to lighten the mood! Doo doo doodoo doo doo doooooo dooooooo dooooo doooooooo) here's one other highlight from this same King column.

Speaking of Super Bowl officiating, in examining the tape from the Week 17 Giants-Patriots game, I saw -- on both sides -- an awful lot of clutching and grabbing by corners and wideouts. The Carey crew will be challenged by how closely to call this game. If the crew calls it too close, there'll be grousing. If the crew calls it too loose, there'll be grousing.

Thank you for perfectly articulating the obvious. People are so darn hard to please, aren't they? If it's too hot outside, they'll complain. But if it's too cold, they'll complain about that! I'll tell you what else, too- if the Patriots score more points than the Giants, they'll win the Super Bowl. But if the Giants score more points than the Patriots, they'll win the Super Bowl. Write it down, folks. You heard it here first.