I AM THE SOOTHSAYER

I know you all adhere closely to my gambling manifesto at all times. Always take the spread against a rookie QB on the road, unless it's Vince Young or Ben Roethlisberger or Andy Dalton or another rookie QB capable of covering on the road. Never count on Norv Turner or another shitty coach after Thanksgiving, unless it's one of those seasons where Norv Turner actually has some momentum going and his team is playing well. And of course, always make sure to lose to your sports-ambivalent wife in your annual gambling competition. Yes, I'm a brilliant prognosticator. That's why last post I said (about Bill):

I get that basketball is your thing, and that it's exciting that the US is great at it. But come on--we get amazing basketball for like 7 months out of every year here. You're no better than NBC, cramming basketball, gymnastics and swimming down our throats.

So what did he do next? Wrote a 3,000 word breakdown of swimming and gymnastics. I am a brilliant genius.

You never think of swimming and gymnastics as Summer Olympics rivals in the Magic-Bird sense,

Because they aren't individual athletes with a cool backstory competing against one another at two different levels of their profession for an extended period of time

much less the Tupac-Biggie sense,

And because they aren't artistic non-rivals who happened to peak at roughly the same time and die tragically within 9 months of each other

but that's exactly what they are.

They definitely aren't. Then again, Simmons's cultural knowledge runs about as deep as my knowledge of how to interact with women, so why shouldn't he choose Bird/Magic and Tupac/Biggie for this analogy?

They peak in the splashiest way possible for just two weeks every four years.

Just like two basketball players who wrote a new chapter for their rivalry pretty much every year for a decade, or two musicians who were really only in the public eye for a few years each!

During that precious window, they battle for worldwide attention, television ratings, prime-time real estate,

Pretty sure NBC finds time to show us each and every second of everything that happens in both of them. At the expense of anything else happening during the Olympics.

SNL cameos,

In order to remain podcast buddies with Seth Meyers, Bill is contractually obligated to pretend that SNL is still relevant.

SportsCenter commercials,

If you can find me a Sportscenter commercial featuring a swimmer besides Phelps or any gymnast, please drop a link in the comments.

patriotic pride,

No.

the affection of horny teenage boys,

No.

pop-culture relevancy

You already tried to say that in other ways, and still, no.

and tens of millions of dollars in endorsements.

No.

If swimming and gymnastics were people, they would absolutely despise each other while pretending publicly that everything was totally fine — you know, kind of like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte.

JUST LIKE LARRY LEGEND AND MAGIC, EXCEPT THAT THOSE TWO ACTUALLY LIKE EACH OTHER, OR TUPAC AND BIGGIE, EXCEPT THAT THOSE TWO NEVER PRETENDED TO LIKE EACH OTHER!

Look, I know most of my posts these days pick on Simmons, and that most of the time I just mock him for constantly recycling material and being unfunny, and you feel like you've read this all before blah blah blah. But let me take a step back and riff on the bigger topic here. This is unfathomably shitty writing. It really is. He wants to compare gymnastics and swimming, which is dumb, but whatever, it's better than a lot of other garbage he's written about, so I'll allow it. But he can't just say "I'm going to break down these two sports for you." No. He's got to try to (poorly) analogize them to two recent rivalries (one of which isn't really a rivalry), then provide no support for the analogies, then try to change the analogies midstream, all the while cracking pathetically terrible jokes. Look, sportswriters aren't necessarily supposed to be good writers. They don't have to be master essayists, they don't have to wow me with their prose. But holy dogshit on a stick: this man sucks asshole at writing. It's astonishing just how bad he is.

Just know that I have no dog in this race. I don't care who captures the imaginary Summer Olympics title.

How convenient! Neither do we.

But after seeing swimming and gymnastics in London, I feel qualified to answer a question that you always secretly wanted to know:

I feel qualified to answer a question Klosterman has always kind of secretly wanted to know, just because each sport is so overunderrated:

"What's more fun to watch in person … Olympic swimming or Olympic gymnastics?"

I hate to be a party pooper but I'm going to guess that it depends on whether you find swimming or gymnastics more interesting. Sorry.

(Thinking.)

Yep, he's still using that device.

Wait, this sounds like the perfect topic for one of my favorite old-school gimmicks … that's right, it's the Dr. Jack Breakdown!!! 

Please don't use three consecutive exclamation marks in your columns!  Why are you writing like a 15 year old texts!

Let's do this.

Let's present some very brief lowlights of this, because I want to go to bed.

VENUES
They're holding swimming in a 17,500-seat venue with seating on just two sides, so for many fans, they could have called this Noseblood Arena. When IOC members, sponsors and heavy hitters with quality seats started no-showing events, they earned the collective ire of everyone in London. (We never totally knew who to blame, but one thing's for sure — the Olympics should definitely consider using seat fillers à la the Oscars.) Even if you dropped some coin for a night of swimming, there's a good chance you ended up watching tiny dots thrash in the pool from the 137th row. There's definitely a "haves vs. have-nots" vibe for swimming.

You know where else that vibe exists?  Between people who can afford to travel to London for the games and get any tickets at all and people who are watching at home on TV.  You oblivious fucking cuntball.

Meanwhile, gymnastics is in a 20,000-seat, state-of-the-art arena 

The swimming venue is the same age and same state-of-the-artness.  It opened in July 2011.  I get that you're doing a breakdown/competition piece, but Jesus, given that there are absolutely no rules and nothing at stake, you could at least try to minimize the spin.

in North Greenwich that doubles as the site for basketball's medal round games, and eventually, the Memphis Grizzlies, Sacramento Kings, Charlotte Bobcats or NBA Expansion Team X. Tickets were similarly tough for gymnastics despite an equivalent number of annoying no-shows, but at least there were more seats and you could enjoy the action from any section 

Watching tiny little dots on gymnastic apparatuses is WAY better than watching tiny little dots in a pool!

(especially with the big video screen).

I don't know this to be true for sure, but I'd bet good money that the swimming venue has one of these too.

So what should you like more — an inclusive sport that accommodates as many fans as possible, or an exclusive sport that operates like a snotty nightclub with a bouncer who reeks of chlorine? 

What I would like most is for you to stop being an entitled little taint hair who has it better than 99.99% of all sports fans and still thinks he doesn't have enough access.

EDGE: GYMNASTICS

(Confused as to why I am supposed to give a shit.)

As usual, Bill's ability to write outpaces my ability to point out how godawful he is at writing.  

Before I Do This Week's TMQR, Let's Take a Minute to Remember that Gene Wojciechowski is Fucking Atrocious

See, the thing is this- I'm reasonably certain Bill Belichick made the right call in going for that 4th down against the Colts on Sunday night. It was a chance, with a great QB and a great receiving corps, to put the game away by gaining two yards. There are arguments to be made against it, of course, but I think it was the right call. What does Gene think? Mostly, Gene thinks that Gene is very clever and funny. He also thinks this is the most cut-and-dried situation in the history of sports, which I guess is the kind of hyperbolic attitude you have to write with to be considered for a position as a sportswriter at a major media outlet these days. Let's dive straight into the retardery.

With 2 minutes, 8 seconds remaining in the game, with the ball on the Patriots' 28-yard line, and with one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the game standing at his side,

Exactly. With an awesome QB and and awesome WR corps by his side... yeah, I already talked about this.

Belichick decided to go for it.

This is like saying "With Albert Pujols by his side, 1 out, and runners on first and second in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th, Tony La Russa decided not to bunt and instead to let one of the greatest hitters in recent history swing away." Actually, Tony La Russa is a dumbass so he probably would call for the bunt there. But you get the idea.

Not play it safe and punt. Not make the Colts drive 50, 60, 70 yards for the game-winning touchdown.

Something they had done twice in the quarter already. Both times from 79 yards, actually, and both times in about 2 minutes. Now that's playing it safe!

But go for it in a "Top Gun" "I've got a need for speed" sort of way, even though everybody is staring at their TVs and saying -- no, screaming -- "What is he doing?!"

It's worth mentioning, of course, that if the 4th down attempt had succeeded Wojciechowski's article would have been titled "Gutsy Belichick knows how to push all the right buttons!"

Not me. I knew what Brady was going to do. He was going to drop into the shotgun formation and try to use a hard count to coax the anxious Indianapolis defensive line into a 5-yard penalty.

Because the Patriots had no timeouts at that point. And surely, if the hard count didn't work, taking the delay of game penalty and punting from 5 yards further back would be no big deal.

Fourth down would become a gift first down.

The hard count trick works like 10 times per season across the entire NFL. Thinking the Patriots were going to try it there, in situation where every yard is critical, is ridiculous.

And it did.

Wait, it did?

For the Colts.

OHHHHHHHH, SNAP!!!!!111

You can rationalize the decision any way you want, but Belichick cost New England a crucial victory.

Well, sure, he sort of did. And so did Kevin Faulk. And so did Tom Brady, for throwing to Faulk when Faulk was dangerously close to the first down marker rather than safely past it. And so did NE's defense, for allowing 21 4th quarter points. And so on and so forth. The result doesn't invalidate the decision. If the Belichick had decided to punt, and then the punt had been blocked and returned for the game winning TD, that decision would have cost New England a (questionably crucial) victory too. But who am I kidding with this logic stuff- trying to explain this to Gene is like trying to explain to a small child that they can't eat cookies for every meal.

Two yards isn't six inches. This wasn't a gimme quarterback sneak; it was a pass, meaning lots of things can -- and did -- go wrong. The first wrong thing was going for the first down.

This decision was wrong for several reasons. First, for being wrong. The way the federal government gave stimulus funds to banks earlier this year was irresponsible for several reasons. First, it was irresponsible.

The second wrong thing was Faulk's bobble.

Yeah, like I've said, let's not not throw him under the bus here. Catch the ball, butterfingers.

The third wrong thing was not having any timeouts to challenge the mark of the ball after Melvin Bullitt's tackle.

0% chance that gets overturned if reviewed. 0%. Ugh, it sickens me, but I'm channeling my inner "Oddsmakers" Mike Wilbon right now. ZERO PERCENT, TONY. ZERO PERCENT CHANCE THAT I WILL MAKE ANY REASONABLE OR NON-BOMBASTIC ARGUMENTS ON THE SHOW TODAY.

But where Belichick's logic springs a very large leak is why he chose Brady and fourth-and-2 over the Patriots' defense and first-and-70. That's about how many yards Manning presumably would have had to cover in the final 120 seconds (with one Colts timeout).

Because, you know, the Colts had only gone 79 yards in 1:49 and 2:04 on separate occasions earlier in the quarter. Clearly, the best way to analyze this decision isn't to look at all the specifics of the situation- it's to simply say "Duhhh, 70 yards is a long ways! Question: ANSWERED."

Giving Manning two minutes and one timeout from his own 30 is taking a chance. He's that good. But giving him two minutes with the equivalent of two timeouts from your 29 is football suicide.

Classic "double wrong" situation. Not only is this idiotic because taking one chance to gain 2 yards with the Patriots' offense is probably less of a chance than giving it to Manning on his own 30 with 2 minutes left (expressed mathematically: [odds of making 4th down attempt] + [odds of stopping Colts IF turnover on downs] > [odds of stopping Colts IF punt]), but they didn't give it to the Colts on the NE 29 "with the equivalent of two timeouts." The turnover on downs happened at the 2 minute warning. The Colts weren't able to use it as a timeout.

If Belichick was worried that his defense couldn't stop the Colts from scoring a touchdown from 70 yards out, why would he possibly think it could stop them from scoring one from 29 yards out?

Wow. You are a simpleton. You are a mental midget. You are a fucking stump.

Brain freeze.

Evidently Belichick was enjoying a Slurpee as he made this decision.