A Gun Piece: Bet you never saw it comin'

GM,

Remember when those crazy locals in Washington, D.C. tried to ban handguns, only to see the Supreme Court rule the ban unconstitutional and essentially yell "Play on!" to the D.C. citizens who like to murder each other at six times the national rate? Well, guess who's gonna be hearing another big-city gun case. That's right! Your favorite panel of nine will get to decide what the entire city of Chicago isn't allowed to decide on its own. This Wall Street Journal piece, released late this morning, shows that the Supreme Court will be reviewing, among other things, a Chicago handgun ban. The chief judge for the then-presiding Court of Appeals, Frank Easterbrook (a Ronald Reagan appointee), defended his court's decision to uphold the ban when he wrote, "Federalism is an older and more deeply routed tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon." In other words, he's a states' rights guy; he even added that "local differences are to be cherished." And if this weren't about gun ownership, a guaranteed American right that conservatives typically love, you and I would completely agree with that last quotation. Of course, the SC has pretty much decided in recent history that Courts of Appeals shouldn't be the final authority on Second-Amendment cases. Sonya Sotomayor agrees, and we groan on principle.

Gun control is pretty far down on the list for me. The criminals will find a way to kill me with or without bans--perhaps even with or without guns (!)--so it's my job to avoid places where violent crime is widespread. As conservatives, we love our local rights and despise unnecessary federal intervention, but what about when a town wants to ban handguns? Do we want the SC setting them straight? GM, as someone who would get my vote for any political election, please set me straight on where we should stand.

-JW

JW,

I'm always annoyed when principles get in the way of what I'd really like to believe. In this case, I'd love it if all guns could be wiped from the face of the earth at my mere command, but I'm mindful that deeper issues are at stake. Having never discharged, touched, or been in the same room with a loaded weapon, I'd be fine with sacrificing your right to hunt on the altar of my right not to be fired upon, but I understand that the matter is more complex than that. We're dealing with self-protection here, and we're dealing with regional identity. Both are significant, and neither should be lightly disturbed.

The problem, I think, occurs when those in love with theory (liberals) attempt to converse with those who favor practice (conservatives). Though banning handguns and other firearms is a theoretical nicety, and one I like on paper, even an incidental examination of the "war" on drugs suggests that commercial realities fail to heed the dictates of politicians. If enough people want something, someone will find a way to sell it to them, and the idea that taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a possibility is either wishful thinking or willful blindness.

Furthermore, while this is a situation where I'd normally apply the principles of Originalism, an attempt to parse the absurdly-structured 2nd Amendment is an exercise in grammatical and syntactical futility. I spend half my professional life dealing with pesky commas, but I'm ready to assert that numbers one and three in the sentence that follows are among the worst ever written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seriously, guys. What the f--k?

If it's safe to assume, as many have, that the commas following "militia" and "arms" are grammatical archaisms, we're still left with the worst of Originalist dilemmas. The main thrust of the amendment (the prohibition against infringment) is syntactically beholden to a historical rather than a contemporary reality. Guns, the framers seem to be saying, have a purpose in the life of a free state. What happens, though, when society moves past the framers' understanding of that purpose?

I'll argue, if I'm forced to choose a side, that the central position of the amendment should be obeyed whether or not the first thirteen words still work for us. There's a reason, after all, why dependent clauses are said to be subordinate.

In any case, it's obvious why the Court agreed to hear this newest case. They didn't go far enough in Heller, and they want to expand it westward. First the District, now the states and cities. Lock and load, boys. Fire at will.

-GM

Two Rants, Loosely Connected

JW,

I've been waiting to complain about this story for quite a while. As its headline suggests, the article predicts an upcoming war over whether or not to extend the federal income tax credit for first-time home buyers. Given the fact that Cash For Cars You're Sick Of . . . er, Cash For Clunkers . . . practically had to be killed with a silver stake through its heart, I'm predicting that the home buyers' credit doesn't go quietly. As anyone familiar with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare can attest, it's almost impossible to stop giving people money once you've signed that first check. The word "entitlement," it seems, was chosen for a reason.

As was the bill in question, whose shades of optimism and egalitarianism ("Let's all own a home!") are meant to disguise its essential foolishness. A power grab and a misguided attempt at economic intervention (see "Socialism"), the tax credit is yet another example of the government favoring one group (those too young or poor to have bought a home before 2009) over another (everyone else). The fact that the arena in question (housing) is one in which artificial intervention already screwed us once only deepens the harm. Some lessons just refuse to be learned.

The problem, as usual, is that most people are either too simple-minded or too greedy to look beneath the surface of what appears at first glance to be a pain-free gift. Buy a house and get eight grand. Not a tax break but a credit--a check for $8,000 even if you didn't pay anywhere near that much in taxes (and many, many people don't). $8,000 is a tactile thing; its impact is immediately felt. Spending money that doesn't exist, though, is deceptive. There's no immediate consequence, and nothing but logic and a study of history reveals that the end of the road must be higher taxes, decreased benefits in other arenas, or national bankruptcy. Obama knows this, of course, as do members of Congress. But tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections--they can only be ruined by them. Perhaps more than anything else, Conservatism is about understanding that fact.

-GM

GM,

Your entry describes perfectly why we need conservatism to have the loudest possible voice in our government. "Tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections," nor can today's Americans vote outside of their own personal box (i.e. on principle), nor can today's Americans understand that scarcity is an actual, certain phenomenon that cannot be overcome no matter how "paperized" the monetary trail becomes. If individual citizens are to will themselves to believe that debt, whether personal or federal, can never hurt you, we need our decision makers to steer the ship using their knowledge to the contrary. This is why a dictatorship would theoretically be the most superior form of government if the dictator also happened to be the smartest, wisest, fairest, most moral person in the country. Popularity, usually gained by appealing to a sea of ignoramuses, wouldn't drive policy.

Meanwhile, the government of college football runs freely without having to worry about the opinions of its followers. Most people want a playoff, but the college football presidents insist on relying on computers and the opinions of buffoons, morons, and the archaic. Take a look at the latest coaches' poll. California, despite losing 42-3 to Oregon and having the same record, is ranked six spots ahead of Oregon! Penn State lost at home to a still-undefeated Iowa and remains four spots ahead of the Hawkeyes. In what world does that make sense?! The only reason Penn State and Cal remain ahead of teams with objectively better credentials is that these coaches value their own preseason rankings ahead of what has actually happened!!! And this s--t dictates post-season fates!

-JW

Monday Football Roundup: Chaos and Regret

JW,

When the 2010 NFL season rolls around, remind me not to make any picks or predictions until at least week four. Though I followed what are usually reliable instincts, last Monday's collection of idiotic pronouncements was so bad I feel like President Obama when his teleprompter goes out--floundering, stuttering, and so message-less it's a miracle I'm allowed to keep my current job, much less get a "better" one. Though ranking the Rams below the utterly hapless Tampa Bay Bucs was a grave error indeed, it's nothing compared to my worst mistake: pronouncing the Cincinnati Bengals' season over. After watching the Bengals outplay the Pittsburgh Steelers yesterday, I'm ready to declare the obvious. Ochocinco was right, and I was wrong. And if you don't think it hurt to type that admission, well . . . child, please!

Here's the thing: Take away Brandon Stokley's crime of the century and you're left with a 3-0 Bengals team that's opened the season by impressing the hell out of everyone on Hard Knocks, beating a popular Super Bowl pick on the road, and knocking off last year's champion at home. In addition to trotting out noteworthy skill players (plural) for the first time in ages, the Bengals just seem tough, committed to something. I can't believe I'm saying this, but after seeing them claw back into contention yesterday after giving up 13 to start the game, I found myself expecting them to pull it out. Given the Pittsburgh-Will-Never-Lose-Or-Win-By-More-Than-Three principle, I even guessed the final score!

Despite the fact that the Bengals are 2-1 rather than undefeated, I love them as a dark horse wildcard team. Yeah, they've got the same record on paper as the odious Packers and Bears, but wouldn't you take them over either of those teams? In a heartbeat? Maybe I'm making too much of three games, but this looks like a team that's breaking some hearts come December.

What did you see this weekend?

-GM

GM,

You're not thinking clearly, although you did tell me before the end of the Titans/Steelers game in Week 1 that Pittsburgh won't win or lose a game by more than three points--an astonishingly wise, barely hyperbolic prediction. Sure, Cincinnati has been much more impressive than we've expected, but there are only two wildcard spots per conference these days, and the Bengals aren't getting one. Do you honestly think Cinci will finish with a better record than the Jets/Patriots, the Chargers/Broncos, and the Steelers?! (My prediction that Baltimore would cruise is so coming true, so forget about a division title for the Bengals.) Sure, Denver might lose its next five games (Dallas, New England, San Diego, Baltimore, Pittsburgh), but you know the AFC East is taking a wildcard spot, and if you trust Cincinnati to take advantage of an easy schedule, you're much less jaded than I am.

As for the college game, I still feel good about my analysis from a week ago. Miami lost, sure, but it had the toughest game of all the ranked teams last week. Meanwhile, Boise State rolled (and covered) again, and Alabama made a huge statement against Arkansas. I proclaimed Ole Miss, North Carolina, Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan to be losers. Two of them lost, and the others beat Southern Miss, Nevada, and Indiana by a combined 20 points. Of my question marks, Penn State, Cal, and LSU proved to be in the loser category. You don't go into Starkville and come four inches from losing to Mississippi State without taking a free fall in the mental standings of college football intellectuals. The Tigers play at Georgia this week and host Florida the next. It'll take a hell of a lot of opponent swine flu for LSU to get through those unscathed.

I'll close with a prediction and a question. An undefeated Boise State team could actually play for the national championship ahead of a one-loss BCS-conference team, mainly because the program has earned so much respect this decade. But can an undefeated Houston team play for the championship under any circumstances?! Sure, with defense like this (0:25 is particularly bad), the Cougars will get blown out if they do, but it's chaos and regret that I pull for every year in this willfully inferior college football system. And if Boise State beats Houston 62-10 in the Rose Bowl on January 7, we'll get both.

-JW

Tips and Picks: The Week 3 Edition

GM,

I hope you've saved all your yardwork for this Saturday. The NCAA is throwing us a collection of stinkers so miserable that I'm considering alternative programming. Really, these games are rotten to the core. Last night, we saw South Carolina upset Ole Miss, which I had predicted but didn't even profit from because Vegas also smelled a rat and didn't offer decent odds. How often does a No. 4 team visit an unranked team and only give 4.5 points?! I've now gone from ripping Jevan Snead to feeling sorry for him. At this rate, he won't get drafted.

Only one of this week's games--Miami at Virginia Tech--pairs two top-25 teams. This makes gambling difficult, perhaps even less fun, but what's a boy to do?

No. 9 Miami (-3) at No. 11 Virginia Tech:

Again, the oddsmakers tend to agree with me about Miami's ability. How could the home team not be favored in this one?! On the other hand, the Hurricanes have been playing great football, and Jacory Harris made me a believer in that convincing win over Georgia Tech. I loved this Miami team on Monday, so I have to love them today. Take the 'Canes to cover.

Texas Tech (+1) at No. 17 Houston; Over-under is 73.5:

Easily billed (by me) as the second-most entertaining game this week, this is Houston's chance to prove it's for real. With an almost-even line, an over-under of 73.5, a potential BCS buster on the field, and a 9:15 kickoff, you must find some action on this one. With the late start in mind, plan to turn to your drunkest buddy and tell him you want the over at 60. It might work. You can't tell anything from watching highlights of these two teams. The defenses look terrible, and the offense looks unchallenged. If you're not brave enough to take the over, go with the Red Raiders. Houston only has two more challenges on its way to what I now hope will be a national title game against Boise State. The other is Mississippi State. I say the exposure comes now.

Notre Dame (-7) at Purdue:

Take Purdue to win outright. I give it a 40-percent chance, and you'll get 2.25 times your investment if it does. Now that's value!

Arizona State (+11.5) at No. 21 Georgia; Over-under is 50.5:

I'll be at this one, and I have no idea why they put the over-under so low. UGA is averaging 34 a game and allowing the same number ("amount" for the less educated). Like all Pac 10 teams in recent memory, the Sun Devils can put up some points and allow some. With student bodies that consistently rank in the top 10 for girls and partying, neither school has time for wrapping up, getting off blocks, or batting down passes. Take the over, and take it with as much "confidence" as your wallet will allow.

-JW

JW,

If you had asked me during the fourth quarter of last night's Ole Miss-South Carolina game whether or not the Rebels would shed their 13-point deficit for a last-minute win, my answer would have been an enthusiastic yes. As in, mortgage-the-house yes. Visit-the-pawnshop yes. Dexter McCluster couldn't be stopped, Jevan Snead had taken his rightful place in the Jonathan Crompton School of Sucking Too Badly to Risk a Pass, and Stephen Garcia looked about as competent as a freshman walk-on. At a junior college. With no football team. Clearly, Sports Illustrated knew what they were doing when they released this beauty. It takes a truly special team to blow a game that winnable.

Which is not to say, mind you, that Ole Miss didn't deserve the loss. It's just that I can't remember the last time a team rose so high on so little. Fans used to college football's incestuous seasoning of regular season rankings with preseason expectations have seen scores of lesser examples (Georgia in 2008; USC in every year since its founding), but something about the Rebels' 2009 hype was particularly ridiculous. This was the 4th best team in the country? Given Snead's numbers and bizarre interaction with Houston Nutt during drives (repeatedly yelling at his coaches to "speed things up," according to reports), last night's Rebs would have been hard pressed to be the 40th best. The fact that I expected them to pull out the win anyway is proof only that South Carolina isn't quite ready to win those games. Not that Ole Miss is.

As we look ahead to this weekend's NFL action, then, I suggest we keep in mind whatever lessons we can draw from the Rebels' misfortune, and the most important among them is this. An overhyped team that's beaten nobody is always susceptible to an underdog that's moving in the right direction. And yes, Minnesota, I'm talking to you. Bank on it.

-GM

United in Stupidity

JW,

A student of mine whose obsession with Taylor Swift is such that she refers only to "Taylor" recently provided an illustration that Barack Obama and his acolytes in Washington and New York might find useful: "I would never hound Taylor for an autograph," the student wrote of her trip backstage at one of Swift's concerts. "All I want is to talk to her and get a picture."

Happily, lessons in self-awareness are never more timely than on the occasion of a presidential address to the United Nations General Assembly. As expected, President Obama's first such remarks, delivered this morning, were filled with the kind of anti-George Bush rhetoric liberals sometimes use to disguise their lack of intelligent proposals, and bursting at other times with calls for peace so hopeful they make one wonder if Obama has ever read a newspaper.

Consider, for example, the president's comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"As we pursue [a two-state solution], we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations."

Nonsense. Offensive nonsense to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history. And even though Obama has to say such things, one wonders (particularly after his World Messiah Tour) if he knows enough to see through them. If he's aware of the limits of his ability to persuade.

If he isn't, perhaps he should have stayed for Muammar Qaddafi's speech, which suggested, among other things, that swine flu was created as a military weapon, that Israel was responsible for the JFK assassination, and that Israel and Palestine should be combined into a single state, Israteen. Like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi's a perfect example of the problem with bilateralism. The guy on the lateral side of the table is usually a dick.

Here's my question as I conclude. In a world of nonalcoholic beer and I-Pods that shoot video, is the United Nations still the dumbest idea ever conceived?

-GM

GM,

You really shouldn't get so worked up about the World Messiah Tour. It's a simple game of positioning, a concept that any marketing specialist is familiar with. And our president--or at least his handlers--truly excels in it.

General Perception: George W. Bush = Bad

General Conclusion: Not Bush = Better Than Bad

Wise Position: Not Bush

Half of Obama's campaign theme was "change," and you know exactly why it worked. It was so effective, in fact, that John McCain tried to steal it just weeks before the election. It's a simple message for a simple audience--even worldwide. "You don't like George Bush? I'm not him. How do you like me?" Of course, as thinkers, you and I realize that the realm of "not George Bush" could be anything from FDR to Nero. It could work out, but it doesn't have to.

Let's face it. Even conservatives have to admit that our relationships with some countries, perhaps Russia in this case, may improve immediately if we just send somebody over there besides Bush.Worthless as an organization or not, the United Nations would like to see a fresh American face as well, and Obama's will do. The UN as an idea may be bad, but it's even worse in practice. Why? Perhaps because, as much as liberals want to accuse this country of being overly religious and backwards, the rest of the world has us beaten in both categories.

-JW

Indy Outscores Miami's Football IQ, 27-23

GM,

If we fired every coach who made terrible late-game decisions and released every quarterback who didn't understand clock management, we would only have the New England Patriots, Peyton Manning, and a few high school teams left to watch. I had no idea that my team would be such an offender, though. Down 27-23 last night, the Miami Dolphins got the ball with 3:18 left on the clock, and they ran out of time at the Indianapolis 30!!! They ran out of time! Three minutes, 18 seconds, two timeouts, and one two-minute warning... and Tony Sparano called plays like it was Miami's lead to protect. Even the South Florida crowd began booing after the first play, when Ronnie Brown ran for a yard and Chad Pennington let the play clock run down all the way before taking a timeout. Ronnie ran it again the next play, and the Dolphins failed to snap it again before the two-minute warning. Mike Tirico, who only gives analysis when it is blatantly obvious, said, "This is the slowest two-minute offense I've ever seen."

I was so flabbergasted by this display of incompetence that I did a little research. Turns out there were 70 touchdown drives in the NFL this week. The average time for a touchdown-scoring drive was 3:03. That was the average. That was the (bleeping) average! With three clock stoppages and 15 more seconds than the average, Miami ran out of time!!! Sparano, you deserve to be fired, but the next guy would do the same thing. Chad, I thought you knew better.

What pains me even more is that coaches rarely take any flack for terrible decisions. The reason is because the sports media are mostly the guys who got picked last for dodgeball and yearn to be athletes themselves. When a coach makes a joke at the expense of a reporter, the other reporters usually laugh with the coach. Rubbish! The media need to be my voice in press conferences; I want some scrutiny.

"Coach, why'd you punt from the opponent's 35-yard line on 4th-and-2 with 1:29 left when you were down three?"

"Coach, why'd you save that last timeout for offense after you had stopped them on third down? That cost you 40 seconds!"

"Coach (Dirk) Koetter (of the 2006 Arizona State team), why'd you punt the ball to USC on fourth down when you were down a touchdown and all the Trojans had to do was take three knees to run out the clock?"

These guys get paid a lot of money to do what they do. I can tolerate losing out to other guys who get paid a lot. I refuse to tolerate losing out to stupidity. Miami found a way to get beaten by the clock.

-JW

JW,

If only for comedy's sake, I'd have paid good money to hear Bill Parcells' fuming in last night's press box. He already had every sports columnist in America complaining that last season's turnaround was a fluky-schedule fraud. Once Tony Sparano morphed into this season's Andy Reid (minus the occassional winning), all bets were off. What's a Tuna to do?

Joking aside, I understand Sparano's thinking completely. Perhaps even more than he wanted the win, he wanted to keep the ball out the absurdly clutch-in-the-regular-season hands of Peyton Manning. Sparano knew that he had one chance to win that game: scoring a touchdown as the game clock wound down to zero. Otherwise, Manning was going to march down the field unhindered. His previous touchdown drive, let's not forget, took all of 32 seconds.

If last night's game taught us anything, it was a reinforcement of the following lesson: Cheering against Manning in the regular season is one of the most miserable experiences a fan can have. Take a look at his stats! 8 of 16 in quarters one through three; 6 of 7 in quarter four. Like Roethlisberger, Manning lulls you into thinking he stinks, only to rip your heart out the minute you start believing in an upset. Savvy fans take advantage of this fact, loading up on the Colts whenever they're giving three or fewer. Slightly less savvy fans (like me) make the mistake of parlaying the Colts with things like "yes" on "Will anyone miss the NBA's refs?". A sucker bet if ever there was one.

If it's any consolation, Miami's players will have the option come January of changing the channel when Peyton Manning loses in the first round of the playofffs. I think we both know they'll be watching from home.

-GM

Monday Football Roundup: Doing What We Do

GM,

Even though college football's national champions tend to lose at some point during the season these days--Florida (1), LSU (2), Florida (1)--I'm not willing to dedicate much of today's post to losers, not three weeks into the season. Brigham Young's loss to Florida State crushed my dreams, proved the Big 12 is a fraud (think Sooners), and perceptually set non-BCS schools back 15 years. Southern Cal's predictable loss ensured the Trojans' 46th straight appearance in the Rose Bowl against an overmatched Big Ten team. As for the unbeatens and their chances of finishing the season unscathed...

The Contenders:

Alabama, Boise State, and Miami are the only schools that have any kind of statement so far this year, and the Hurricanes have been the most impressive! Five of Miami's opponents on this year's schedule are currently ranked, and it's already knocked off two of them. Justice: the 'Canes will be ranked No. 1 if they beat Virginia Tech and Oklahoma the next two weeks. Reality: they won't be even be ranked first in Florida. Boise State obviously has the best chance of running the table, while 'Bama and Miami should play for the national title if they can do it.

The Question Marks: Florida, Texas, Penn State, California, LSU, TCU, Cincinnati, and Houston (!) all have legitimate hopes of winning out. As I said, an undefeated Miami versus an undefeated SEC squad would be most logical title-game choice, but mark my words, if Cal beats USC and runs the table, the Golden Bears will get the same treatment USC is used to getting. Let's all hope Penn State manages to fall to one of these posers, lest we see a very boring championship.

The Losers (Did you think I would say "Pretenders"?): Ole Miss leads this bunch, which also includes North Carolina, Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan. The Rebels have absolutely no chance of going undefeated, losing only one game, losing only two games, winning the SEC West, or finishing the season the the Top 15. In the preseason, this team was hyped up more than the Jonas Brothers. Despite having the easiest SEC schedule since Enron, we can expect Ole Miss to suffer a similar fate.

-JW

JW,

Unless you work for USC or have a love of continuity so overdeveloped it's unhealthy, why on earth are you watching the Rose Bowl?

That aside, here's this. Especially for those of us whose interest in football has what I'll call financial ramifications, week two of the NFL season is a crucial moment. After all, week one's results are easily dismissible as predictors of future performance, particularly when game stats are so clearly ridiculous (Kansas City being only fourteen points worse than Baltimore; Oakland racking up a mere forty yards of penalties) that they're obviously meaningless. Week two, on the other hand, is when trends begin to emerge, when the events of the previous week come into proper focus. Now that we've reached that benchmark, here are some things that we know:

Baltimore, Atlanta, and Minnesota have to be taken seriously.

Sure, they've beaten up on teams with a combined record of 1-10 (soon to be 1-11 when Miami implodes against the Colts tonight), but all three of these squads have displayed a surprising offensive crispness, throwing a combined 13 touchdowns to 4 interceptions. Nothing heroic, but not embarassing, either. Look for line-setters to underestimate these guys in the near future. Act accordingly.

The Denver Broncos are fool's gold.

2-0, meet 4-12. Denver's managed to look terrible beating Cincinnati and merely passable against a Cleveland team with no identity and a coach that everyone hates. If it weren't for fantasy football, you'd have never heard of a single player on this squad.

The Rams may be the worst football team ever composed.

That's right! Two games in and I'm already ranking them below the '08 Lions. The Lions seemed to at least recognize the stellar play of others. As far as I can tell, the Rams aren't even sure what you're supposed to do with a football.

Drew Brees will break the single-season touchdown record with the least amount of fanfare ever accorded the shattering of a major record.

And then the Saints will lose their first playoff game. They're too dependant on timing and rhythm, and their defense sucks. I know the defense-wins-championships myth has long been debunked, but I can't bring myself to let go of it. And this team has off-game-at-the-worst-possible-moment written all over it.

The Dolphins, Bengals, Browns, Jaguars, Raiders, Chiefs, Lions, Bucs, and Rams are already lost for the season.

Their problem? A complete and utter lack of football identity. Think of it this way: When a team like the Steelers goes out, they know exactly what their job is. They'll throw methodical passes and stop the run; they'll dominate time of possession and give up very few big plays; if necessary, they'll unleash a killer two-minute offense. Five minutes to game-time, they can motivate themselves with some version of the following: "Let's do what we do." Simply put, the teams above can't. They don't do anything. Sure, they'll win some games, but no one will know quite how it happened. Just ask yourself: When was the last time someone said, "That's Bucs football"?

Gun to my head, I'm picking Baltimore and Minnesota to meet in the Super Bowl.

And I'm picking Favre to stink in it. One question, though: Does he have a final year of eligibility at Southern Miss?

-GM

Tips and Picks: The Week 2 Edition

GM,

Let's talk football. Since no Top 25 games outside the SEC really interest me this week (although Oklahoma State is playing another C-USA team from Houston), I'm going to run through the SEC games and tell you whom to bet on. Consider my gambling record in anything but NFL futures and low-limit online poker before you pile on.

Mississippi State (+9) at Vanderbilt: When they're playing other people, you can't trust either of these teams to do anything for you. There was a time (primarily 2003 and 2004) when Starkville, Miss. bookies refused to take bets against Mississippi State because the team simply could not cover a spread. This game promises to be a snoozer any way you slice it, but I'll take the Bulldogs to cover if not win outright.

West Virginia (+7) at Auburn: Auburn has really impressed me this year--against Louisiana Tech and Mississippi State. Please stay away from this game. I'll take the Mountaineers with a gun to my head.

Tennessee (+30) at Florida: If Lane Kiffin sings "Rocky Top" all night long Saturday night, it will be because his team covered this much-publicized spread, which it will. In fact, I say Tennessee is still in the game at halftime!

Louisville (+14) at Kentucky: I flipped a coin, and it got lost in the sofa. Even it can't decide. Take Kentucky.

Georgia (+2) at Arkansas: Apparently the oddsmakers know something the pollsters don't, which is often the case. Arkansas is barely in the "Others receiving votes" category in either poll, and UGA's only loss is to another ranked team. So far, UGA is having trouble in the "key stops" department, so go Hog wild.

North Texas (+39) at Alabama: Lock of the week. Take the North Texas Mean Green. They're much better than dreadful, and only dreadful teams should be 39-point dogs.

Florida Atlantic (+20.5) at South Carolina: 'Cocks.

Southeastern Louisiana at Ole Miss: Ole Miss won't even cover the spread that this game doesn't have. That's because, if it did have one, it would be 50 or more, and Ole Miss will win by 38 because Jevan Snead was the most overrated player in football this preseason. Mark my words, he will not be drafted in the first round.

Louisiana Lafayette (+27) at LSU: Lafayette just beat a Big 12 team! It was Kansas State, but that's enough to make me stay away from this game. Take the Tigers because they haven't made a statement yet and may want to.

-JW

JW,

The old joke is that I wouldn't watch [boring game] if they were playing it in my backyard, but I'm here to tell you that I wouldn't watch Mississippi State at Vanderbilt if I were quarterbacking one of the squads and they had me in one of those Clockwork Orange eyelid-securers. A wretched, horrible game. As my brother-in-law says, I'm cheering for the field to open up and swallow both teams.

Happily, this weekend's NFL action is a horse of a different color, as shown by the following match-ups:

Houston at Tennessee: Both teams are 0-1, both underperformed in week one, and both need badly to get off to a good divisional start. The difference? While Tennessee could still go 11-5 and make the playoffs without surprising too many people, Houston was unmasked as the exact same fraud they've been since picking a nickname about one-tenth as good as "Oilers." The Titans don't blow teams out, but they might make an exception this week.

Carolina at Atlanta: I can't find the record for most interceptions thrown in a three-game stretch, but with nine in his last two starts, Jake Delhomme's got to be approaching the number. Delhomme's obviously a must-boo at home for the rest of his Carolina career, but I'll be watching to see if Atlanta's crowd (i.e., "sprinkling of fans") preemptively cheers the man. After all, if they win it will be largely his doing.

St. Louis at Washington: Completely unwatchable, but intruiging in retrospect as the worst game of the 2009 season. The Redskins could start President Obama at quarterback and still manage to be uninteresting. I'd legitimately rather watch Congress in session.

Tampa Bay at Buffalo: Judging by last week's forgettable performance, the Bucs are still looking for an identity. How about, Team That Loses This Week In Buffalo?

-GM

ACORN: Further Proof That Democrats Are the Worst People on Earth

JW,

Unless you've been living under a rock (or unless you rely solely on the mainstream media for your news), you've probably seen this video or one of its counterparts. If you haven't, drop everything and watch it. Right now.

What you'll see is a young conservative activist named James O'Keefe accompanying his female partner, Hannah Giles, into the San Bernardino office of ACORN, Barack Obama's nationwide bigotry and vote-rigging operation. Posing as a pimp and his prostitute, O'Keefe and Giles proceed to solicit information from an ACORN worker on such matters as avoiding prosecution for kidnapping underage El Salvadorian girls, laundering money meant for O'Keefe's congressional run, and securing a mortgage loan for their whorehouse. As you're probably guessing, ACORN worker Tresa Kaelke is more than happy to help.

While the entire clip is comedy of the highest standard, the real magic begins around the 4:20 mark, when Kaelke sums up liberalism so succinctly that Karl Marx is smiling up at her from hell. Responding to the fact that O'Keefe and Giles have had trouble securing financing for the brothel, Kaelke states the following:

There are a lot of narrow-minded, you know, one-sided, um, let's see, right-wing, bleeding- heart liberals out there that, that, you know and they're, I mean, bleeding hearts, not necessarily liberals, because if they were liberals they would be helping you.

Let's pause for a moment just to let that breathe. If they were liberals, they would be helping you.

I'm perfectly aware, of course, that a documentary crew traversing the nation's home-schooling associations and youth groups could capture right-wingers saying some fairly damning s--t, but you've got to admit that Kaelke's bravado in the face of immorality is staggering, as is her claim a few moments later that Obama's campaign was itself built on "bootlegging and prostitution." Thank God Jimmy Carter's around to change the subject.

One last thing and I'll let you take it from here. I mentioned the mainstream media earlier because this is the exact sort of thing that doesn't get reported nationally unless YouTube gets involved. (Check out this article bemoaning the lack of coverage for some interesting insight.) As far as I know, the New York Times' only serious contribution came this morning, under the headline "Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn."

Not "Acorn Errs" but "Conservatives Attack." You don't have to be a rhetorician to see the spin. You just have to be awake.

-GM

GM,

If you don't mind my adding facts to your prompt--facts I mainly retrieved from your own hyperlinks--allow me to slip a few key details into the discussion.

1. John A. Boehner, the House Republican leader from Ohio, wrote Obama Tuesday asking him to stop giving federal dollars to ACORN and its affiliates. By the way, ACORN is legally nonpartisan, but its "legally separate political action arm" has "lobbied in every Democratic National Convention since 1980" (Wikipedia). (As I was typing this response, Wikipedia added a "2009 undercover videos" section.)

2. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has already made the decision to stop funding ACORN.

3. According to your Fox News story, employees (or "officials," depending on how much a given article wants these people to be the face of ACORN) at "no fewer than four ACORN offices" have been caught doing the same thing Kaelke did, or worse.

4. Like many terrible and offensive things, ACORN's headquarters is in New Orleans.

With that said, this is a legitimate scandal, right? A very liberal (or at least Democrat-friendly) group was using federal money to advise people on how to operate whorehouses--with not just any type of whores. We're talking underage girls imported from El Salvador. From the sound of these interviews with Baltimore's ACORN branch, ACORN employees seem to be experts in underage trafficking, illegal immigration, prostitution, and tax evasion. Please watch Parts 1 and 2. To show their support, the employees give the fake pimp $100 off his tax return fee. They probably intend to vote for him when he runs for congress (!), which he tells them he'll one day do.

If I were a film critic, I'd use words like "astonishing" and "eye-opening" to describe this mini-documentary. If I were a Democrat, I'd use words like "racism," "sensationalism," and "malicious attacks" in order to discredit those who rightfully want to put a megaphone in front of O'Keefe's whistle. We discussed Tuesday how we're not allowed to question Obama without being called racists; now we can't even question his interest groups without incurring the same scorn. Though he often deserved it, was George W. Bush not the constant object of ridicule and sarcasm? Now, all of a sudden, the office of the presidency commands immediate respect without question?! Screw that. The presidency deserves the highest level of scrutiny no matter who's in the White House. It's unlikely, in my opinion, that Kaelke had the damnedest clue what she was talking about when she said Obama probably had a few highly illegal sources for campaign financing. Then again, people who don't have the damnedest clue--people who utter phrases like "right-wing, bleeding-heart liberals"--did vote for the man.

-JW

Maureen Dowd Calls Joe Wilson a Racist. (America Shrugs.)

JW,

If you weren't already convinced of the American Left's willingness to ignore logical soundness in pursuit of political ends, take a look at Maureen Dowd's recent excoriation of Joe Wilson and his now-famous interruption of what must have been Barack Obama's hundred-thousandth primetime address. Here's the pertinent section:

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer . . . had much to do with race . . . . But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president . . . convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

Well, then.

As you're probably realizing, Dowd's gravest error isn't her overwrought prose (though "shrieking lunacy" comes close). Instead, it's her willingness to affirm the consequent--creating a line of reasoning that reads something like this: If Joe Wilson were racist, he'd call Obama a liar. Wilson did call Obama a liar; thus, he must be racist.

The problem, as you know, is that one thing doesn't logically follow the other. And by suggesting that it does, Dowd discounts the possibility of legitimate disagreement (which must be answered, or at least explained away) in favor of illegitimate disagreement (which must be censored on the House floor). Simply put, Obama cannot be fairly opposed. His followers have removed that option.

Sadly, Dowd's silliness is a preview of what we can expect for the next few years. Anytime Obama stumbles--anytime his critics get too loud--we're going to hear the "r" word. It's the great American circus of racial politics. I can't get enough of it.

-GM

GM,

Over the past few days, I've seen numerous tweets (well, Facebook updates) disparaging Kanye West for some action that may or may not have been racist. I honestly had no idea what it was all about--or that it had anything to do with Taylor Swift or Beyonce. I only knew that Kanye's accusers (in my neck of the woods, at least) were themselves playing the race card on a guy who played it four years ago. Before I continue, let's make it clear that I've never once tweeted or intentionally listened to any of these artists, but I've at least heard of such nonsense.

For those who don't know, West (black) interrupted Swift's (white) award acceptance speech to say Beyonce (black) should have won the award, and many of my pop-culture-tolerant friends (white) deemed the act racist. There's an undeniable parallel here. They, like Dowd, viewed the offender's history, used some bad logic, and came to the conclusion that the act itself was racially motivated. After all, a racist person might perform such an action because of race. If I were one to bet on completely unprovable features such as racism, I would bet that West and Wilson are racists. But maybe, just maybe, West thought Beyonce should have won and Wilson thought Obama was lying. When Dowd wrote that she practically heard, "You lie, boy!"--"boy" being a word she added and used twice in the title--she was assuming that Wilson's outburst couldn't possibly be a legitimate thought. If I could sit down with her, I'd inform her that a white racist can assume poorly of a black person without using any prejudice. It's possible. And if he's a republican and the black man is a radically left president, it's likely.

What's more interesting is the side story that enabled me--rather, forced me--to learn all this pop stuff. Turns out that ABC News reporter Terry Moran tweeted Obama's off-the-record remark that Kanye West is a "jackass." Let's see.... A racist person might breach his or her journalistic duties to expose a black president's name-calling. So Moran is a racist, right?

-JW

Monday Football Roundup: Smarter Than the Armchair Quarterbacks Y'all Are Used To

GM,

My emotion toward the possibility that all hell will break loose come bowl season in college football is nothing short of pure lust. Every year, I try to determine the scenario that would most likely make the college football presidents shout, "To hell with our obstinacy; we need a playoff!" Look, I don't want to go entirely into my well-polished rant about why a playoff is not only fairer but also more financially sensible. Let's just say that anyone who doesn't understand that a playoff or "plus-one system" (read: short playoff) would add to the number of meaningful games--even regular-season games (!)--shouldn't be reading this blog, talking about football, working in a non-sweatshop, or breathing the same sweet, free, American air that I breathe. Eight teams. Three weekends. Seven glorious, meaningful games between powerhouses. More ad revenue. More ticket revenue. Keep the bowls, and don't pretend like they've been devalued.

That said, I'm currently salivating over the thought of a Boise State/Brigham Young national championship, which might make some powerful people see things my way for the first time.

Now for some reactions to the Saturday (or, as it was pronounced where I'm from, "Sairdee") scoreboard...

USC 18, Ohio State 15: Does this mean USC's only seven points better than Navy?

Houston 45, Oklahoma State 35: College football parity strikes again, proving my point further. Are we sure Utah couldn't have beaten Florida last year?

Notre Dame 34, Michigan 38: I knew Michigan would win this game like I knew USC would cover -7, so why'd I only bet on USC? Notre Dame, you're an embarrassment to tradition, and those who continue to rate you highly are an embarrassment to youth and impartiality.

UCLA 19, Tennessee 15: How far the Vols have fallen. Even Vegas has caught on. Florida is giving 28.5 points this week.

-JW

JW,

On the scale of who should decide championships if the athletes themselves aren't allowed to do so, I've got the refs ranked slightly higher than sports journalists. That's why, while I watch and will occasionally complain about college football, my heart belongs to the professionals. Even though I was happy to read your college playoff rant (which, happily, nodded to the seldom-mentioned fact that bowl games are impossible to further devalue), I'll be talking about the big boys today.

I've been thinking over the last few days about how we might set ourselves apart from the dozens of Power Rankings that crop up after NFL Sundays and Mondays. My solution? "Flower" Rankings--a tiered sorting of teams based on their unwillingness to engage in violence of any sort. The delicate fellows atop my list often refuse to hit at all, composing defensive schemes reminiscent of the crowd during Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Detroit and Carolina lead the pack right now, but I fully expect Buffalo to shoot up the list early this evening, and Oakland, as you know, can never be counted out.

Or what about "Cower" Rankings, dedicated to those teams that have decided not to stray from the safety of their own territory. The St. Louis Rams, for example, haven't crossed the fifty-yard line since Super Bowl XXXVI, and their bulletin board goals for the week now include successfully boarding the team plane. Kansas City has a few scores to its name, I'm happy to say, but the last time they marched the full length of the field, Missouri was celebrating a newly-won statehood.

For particularly rank coaching decisions, I'm creating a "Sour" Rankings, and leading this field is Lovie Smith. I understand, of course, that asking highly-paid, professional game-managers to understand the nuances of scoring and time is a stretch, but Smith's third-quarter decision to kick an extra point and settle for a one-point deficit instead of going for two in a clear defensive battle was one for the ages. It didn't end up mattering, and no one will talk about it, but if your coach's logic includes any variant on "It's too early to worry about tying the game," you're probably in for a long season.

-GM

The NFL: Where the 2008 Election Goes to Learn About Predictability

JW,

When we're right, we're right, and when the NFL's at issue, we're damn right. I don't know about you, but I'm ready to demand a by-line after seeing yesterday's NFL script. Not only did we nail our pro-football complaints, but an email I sent to friends last night was so spot-on, I'm having myself tested for clairvoyance.

With 5:00 to go in the third quarter, I'm ready to say that [the Titans are] better than Pittsburgh but will probably still lose the game. I'm scared to death of Pittsburgh's two-minute offense. Their other fifty-eight minutes? Not so much.

Here's my question, then, after watching the 2009 Steelers crap all over both their history and the league's: Why, under any circumstances, should Pittsburgh ever again run or go into a huddle? I mean, ever.

After all, the team marching down the field at will during the game's three crucial drives--the end of the first half; the end of the second half (Hines Ward's fumble notwithstanding); and overtime--bore absolutely no resemblance to the going-nowhere, up-the-middle-for-two gang that might as well have spent quarters one and three working a crossword puzzle. If Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl this year and gives New England legitimate competition for Team of the Decade, it will be because, like the Patriots, they mastered (to their shame) the rinky-dink, pass-our-way-to-victory bulls--t that renders the run game insignificant and can't be stopped if you've got a good line and a slot receiver worth his paycheck. Simply put, the old adage about running and championships just doesn't work anymore. The league is too fast, the rules too slanted in favor of offenses, and the O-Lines too big. One game into the season, I'm ready to bet my last dollar that this year's champion will be a high-completion, low-yardage passer with a fair-to-middling running game. Yes that's right, Minnesota. You've chosen poorly.

Here are some other notes and some well-deserved back-patting:

-Troy Polamalu's textbook hit on Chris Johnson and the flag that followed almost killed me. Johnson, one of the fastest guys in the league, was sprinting down the sideline. By the time he veered out of bounds, Polamalu was already in the air flying toward him. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson manipulated the entire situation. He's a world-class athlete. He can't time his run so that he leaves the playing field just as he's about to be hit?

-Not only was the first game of the season decided by an overtime in which only one team saw the ball (here's your take on that travesty), but the normally reliable Chris Collinsworth made the ridiculous argument that the NFL's system works because "the game could end on any play." Geez, Chris! Why not just toss out the clock and the whole four quarters thing and make the winner the first team to score?

-Predictably, Al Michaels' (and Collinsworth's) use of "Ben" instead of "Roethlisberger" bordered on self-parody. It crossed the border into homo-eroticism.

-Obviously, I'm not going to stop watching the NFL, but last night's game reminds me of why professional football isn't as flawless as its apologists would have us believe.

What did you see while watching?

-GM

GM,

I spent half of last night watching the Clemson-Georgia Tech game, to which I refused a free ticket partially because I love the NFL opener so much. I'm also low on time right now, so I'll only get at the heart of what's bothering me.

The Polamalu hit was not only a perfect, safe tackle, it might have saved a touchdown! Look at the video again. Assuming Johnson had the corner turned on William Gay (#22), Polamalu was the last line of defense. Johnson stepped out of bounds as a reaction to (!!!!!) Palamalu's dive. Just to be clear, here was the order of occurrences. Watch the video one more time and see if you don't agree.

1. Polamalu begins his diving undercut to take down Chris Johnson, who is still a foot away from the sideline.

2. Johnson sees the defender coming toward his legs and sidesteps out of bounds to avoid the brunt of the contact. His right foot lands out of bounds.

3. Less than a tenth of a second after that right foot hits, Polamalu's tackle connects, upending Johnson.

The NFL has decided that this is a 15-yard penalty, even though it's clear that Polamalu started his tackle while Johnson was still in bounds. Essentially, the league demands that linebackers and defensive backs have 4.4 speed and that they can stop on a dime, even in the mid air!!! Do you think Johnson let his guard down the split second his foot touched the chalk?! There is simply no point to that call.

GM, it's nice see that you've admitted what I've been screaming about the Patriots this whole millennium. New England won two of its three SuperBowls with Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk splitting carries--and not that many. Brady made his living quickly finding slashing receivers in Bill Belichick's simplified, less defensible west-coast knock-off. Roethlisberger makes his living off pump-faking and backyard football. And the exhausted notion that running and defense wins football games is a complete farce. The NFL is decided on third down. Those who can convert (via pass) and get stops (typically against the pass) win championships.

-JW

Making Our Wishes

GM,

Since 1990, there has been only one occurrence that I've dreamed about at the beginning of every season--the Dolphins winning the SuperBowl. Well, over the last decade, I've fantasized about the Patriots going 2-14, but even Tom Brady's lost season couldn't make that happen. During down years for Miami, it's the stories of controversy, betrayal, criminality, stupidity, and excess media zeal ("overzealousness" isn't a word) that keep me going. Since this may be one of those seasons, here's what I would love to see this wonderfully promising year.

1. Feuds between Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick, Terrell Owens and Trent Edwards, Terrell Owens and the coaching staff, Brian Urlacher and Jake Plummer, Tom Cable and the rest of the Raiders' staff, Tom Cable and Al Davis, Jerry Jones and Wade Phillips, and Brett Favre and the whole Vikings team.

2. Pansy, QB-protecting calls affecting the outcome of so many games that the league has to reconsider its rules.

3. Every sudden death only consisting of one possession so that the league has to reconsider its overtime policy. (In 2002, my Dolphins missed the playoffs because they were one of 11 teams that played an overtime game without seeing the ball. There were only 26 OT games that year. If 42 percent of your overtimes are completely one-sided, isn't it time to adjust?)

4. A 7-9 Chargers team hosting a playoff game so that the league has to reconsider its playoff structure.

5. The Cincinnati Bengals winning fewer than seven games. I don't know why... it's just very important to me.

-JW

JW,

I was sure your "betrayal" link was going to take me to footage of Peyton Manning bitch-slapping Tony Dungy during a team meeting. So I'm disappointed. Big time.

Still, I like your list, and I'll second your complaint about NFL overtimes. Sure, they're exciting, but so is your first prison shower. So is trying to escape from a concentration camp. Buffalo's ridiculous playoff comeback against the Houston Oilers back in '93 was exciting as hell, but Oilers fans probably could have done without it.

That said, here's my own 2009 wish list.

1) John Madden guest-announces Green Bay at Minnesota on October 5th. Brett Favre refuses the start because he's "too tired."

2) New evidence is found in the Ray Lewis case. Ray and Plaxico Burress arrange to serve their sentences as cellmates. A reality show chronicles their adventures.

3) Mike Tomlin's attempt to chest-bump a player is met with stony silence and a shaking head.

4) The Dallas Cowboys play a terrible first half in week one of the playoffs. Jerry Jones takes over for Wade Phillips at halftime and leads the Cowboys to a defeat even more shameful than anticipated.

5) Eli Manning cries during a game. Archie arranges to have him traded.

We're mere hours away, so I'll stop there. I can't remember the last time I was this excited!

-GM

Flagging Their Play: Liberalism and the Ruination of American Football

JW,

Every now and then, the American northeast provides such a fine illustration of liberalism's idiocies that it must be brought to light. Today's example involves Graydon Pool, a 2.6-acre, naturally-occurring swimming hole in Ridgewood, New Jersey. Established as a community park in 1929, Graydon Pool has in recent years been transformed into a battlefield for political armies. On the right, traditionalists hold fast to the park of their childhood and see the battle for Graydon as a battle for the town's heritage. On the left, younger residents propose replacing the swimming hole with "a more familiar symbol of summer, a blue concrete pool." Driven by liberalism's twin obsessions--sterility and (the perception of) safety--these citizens "want a thoroughly disinfected pool with clear waters so they can always see their youngsters," the Times reports. While the outcomes of various legal filings remain in doubt, it's hard to imagine the park surviving another generation in its current form. The pressures to "fix" it will likely be too great.

Similarly, fans of American football as it now exists would be well-advised to begin mobilizing in its support, as anyone who watched college games over the weekend can attest. Time and again, hits were penalized simply because they looked bad (as game analysts suggested), or because a ball-carrier seemed not to have expected the contact. Even those tackles whose illegalities have been officially codified speak directly to the creeping feminization of the sport: Driving a quarterback into the ground is now forbidden, as is hitting a "defenseless" receiver or pulling a player down from behind. Opposing players have already begun to game the system, of course, and drawing a penalty is now considered a successful offensive play. It doesn't have its own page in the playbook yet (that we know of), but that day is probably coming.

The end result of this change is that hits that once disuaded reckless play-calling (such as too-high, over-the-middle tosses to receivers) will slowly become the norm. Furthermore, a sport already slowed by its endless official reviews will continue to slog through the mud of three-and-a-half and even four hour games as penalty flags become even more pervasive. Just as very little has hurt this country more than the leftist belief in the achievability of "perfect" safety, "perfect" equality, and "perfect" justice, so the pursuit of pain- and injury-free football will inevitably ruin it. Just as the urge to tinker endlessly with policies promising salvation has led to such inane questions as "What if no one were poor?", so that urge will lead the guardians of the game to one day ban contact altogether.

Tackling, I think it's safe to say, is a regressive art.

-GM

GM,

There was a time when the most penalized teams were the most successful teams. Occasional lost yardage was the small price of psychologically dominating your opponents and getting away with penalties half the time anyway. In high school, you can still get really creative with it. I've seen undersized offensive lines resort to such tactics as groin-grabbing and trying to rip the defensive end's helmet off by the facemask. I suppose you could argue that the players essentially monitor each other when the refs don't have a clue, but I don't think this is the league we should aim for.

Now, however, the powers that be have gone too far the other way. If you're running full-speed at another guy who's running full-speed, and he takes one step out of bounds a tenth of a second before you hit him, flag. If you deck a receiver hoping to make him drop a ball--but he's already dropped it and is therefore "defenseless"--flag. If you so much as touch an NFL quarterback's helmet, flag. If you tackle the quarterback with full body weight (!), flag. And if you lead with your helmet, may God have mercy on your soul. All this hypersensitivity just means that every close game is decided by the officials, by penalties called and uncalled. "We lost by a point to BYU," says the Oklahoma fan, "but that hit on Bradford came a full three-tenths of a second after he released the ball! That's bull s--t! We should have had first-and-goal!"

...and now we're full circle back to your point.

Liberals, fans who don't understand the game, and (amazingly) the game's officials want to trade personal accountability for ambiguous culpability. My failure = somebody else's fault. The "window play" will soon be a staple of every offense. On third-and-impossible, the quarterback will just wait to throw the ball until a charging defender is in that increasingly open window of "I'm committed to making this tackle" and "It might be an automatic-first-down penalty."

"Window, on two, break!"

-JW

NFC South Preview: A Shameful End to a Project We're All Sick Of

GM,

I think we both know it's no coincidence that we saved the NFC South for last in our NFL preview: We're each going to have to research the Buccaneers in order to write a single intelligent or knowledgeable word about them. Well, you will. Luckily, I ran into a Tampa Bay fan over the weekend, and he confirmed my suspicion that it's virtually impossible for the Bucs to win the division, make the playoffs, make a run of any kind, or even play spoiler. They won't even be bad enough to be interesting. This year's Tampa team should be about as memorable as John Rocker's stint with the Devil Rays. It happened, sure, but no one's better off for knowing it.

Those familiar with gamblers' way of thinking have this division being the most competitive, with the Saints having the best odds (2:1) and the Bucs having the worst (4:1). Carolina and Atlanta are each at 5:2. In the South, it's all about trust, though, meaning I'm picking the Panthers, a well-coached squad that's never a league punching bag, to be hosting a playoff game in January.

Atlanta has a strong running game with Michael Turner, an underrated play-maker in wideout Roddie White, a Hall-of-Fame tight end addition in Tony Gonzalez, and a so-far reliable quarterback in Matt Ryan. The Falcons also have a below-average defense and a historical inability to manufacture consecutive winning seasons. I don't trust 'em.

New Orleans should score 500 points this season. The Saints have way too many weapons on offense, and the defense might even improve with Darren Sharper on the field and Gregg Williams on the sideline. But take it from a guy who used to live where a lot of Saints fans dwell:

DO NOT TRUST THIS TEAM!

- JW

JW,

I formed my impressions of NFL teams back in the early nineties when I first started watching football regularly. Because the Saints sucked in those days, their success has always been something of a novelty to me. It's something you don't see every day, and as a result it's intriguing. I like to see them do well. I'd love to see them in the playoffs or even the Super Bowl. Among guys my age, I doubt that I'm alone.

Sadly, much of the Saints' strategy over the past few years has been based on a serious miscalculation. Just as the Atlanta Falcons and Tennessee Titans learned that you can't win a championship with a "mobile" black quarterback who throws poorly, so New Orleans will one day have to admit that Reggie Bush isn't a particularly good player. He's certainly not the game-changer we saw in college (or didn't see if we lived on the east coast and went to bed before 2:00 am). And he's definitely not worth the millions of words that have been dedicated to him in Saints preview capsules this summer.

I mention Bush, by the way, because he's a good example of why the NFC South can't be trusted. Records and statistics aside, the casual fan has heard of way too many of these guys.

Think about it this way. If you haven't watched football seriously since 2003, you're thrilled that the Panthers are starting Jake Delhomme at quarterback, that consensus Freshman All-American selection Reggie Bush is playing for the Saints, and that the Falcons just traded for Tony Gonzalez. If you have watched, you know that Delhomme is the worst starting professional athlete in sports, that Reggie Bush got outrushed last year by Michael Bush, and that the Chiefs won exactly nothing with Gonzalez despite the fact that he wasn't old . . . yet. Picking the NFC South to make any noise this year is like picking Larry Johnson in your fantasy draft. You might as well call your team the Rip van Winkles.

All this brings me to why I'm picking the Tampa Bay Bucs to at least contend for the division title. Unlike faux-sleeper Houston, who brings arguably the best receiver in the game and an up-and-coming running back to the table, Tampa Bay would absolutely shock people. They're the ultimate sleeper! Reading their roster just put me to sleep!

Laugh if you will, but I'm picking the Bucs to outwin the Saints and Falcons by two games and give the Panthers a run for their divisional money. It's not as sure a bet as Jon Gruden coaching the Broncos, Vikings, or Bills next season, but it's close.

-GM

AFC South Preview: Where the Sons of Plantation Owners Still Prosper

JW,

A quick review of our past weeks' work reveals that I haven't exactly been optimistic about most teams' 2009 chances. That's why I'm so excited about this season's AFC South, whose dominance of non-divisional opponents in the coming campaign may well rival the Harlem Globetrotters'. Take a look at their schedules, where the NFC West and AFC East loom about as large as Micro Machines. Other than New England (who you've got to figure one of these teams will find a way to beat), the AFC South could come close to running the table. This is the group, I think it's safe to say, that's going to get screwed by your 6-10, playoff-hosting Chargers.

Indianapolis' success, of course, is pretty much set in stone--they've had 12+ wins for the last six years and show no signs of letting up as long as choking in the first round of the playoffs remains a viable goal. As a friend of mine likes to say, this is finally going to be the season in which Peyton Manning proves himself to be the greatest quarterback of all time at home during the regular season. So what if the Colts' depth chart reveals a running back platoon that a Wheelchair Olympics squad would be ashamed of? These guys'll pass three times as much as they rush, convert every single one of their fourth downs, and annoy the hell out of me September through December. Not a bad season at all.

Where Houston and Jacksonville are concerned, there's also a lot to like. I can't get enough of Steve Slaton and Maurice Jones-Drew, and I'm predicting breakout seasons for both Matt Schaub and David Garrard. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that both of these teams just feel exciting--particularly the Texans, who could lead the league in offense if Schaub stays healthy. Throw in their inevitable bandwagon and I see them giving somebody a serious run for the wild card slot.

Just don't let that team be the Titans, who are due for some serious revenge after last year's miscarriage of justice against the Ravens. My goodness! A playoff game was ruined by bad officiating! Period. No debate. Why has more not been made of this?

The answer, of course, is that the NFL remains impervious to scandal. Steroids can't hurt it even though they nearly killed baseball. Terrible calls can't bring it to its knees even though mistakes of this magnitude in the NBA would be national sports news for weeks. As a result, the only solution is self-policing, so let's give the Titans some make-up calls the likes of which this game has never seen. A turned-off play clock every fourth quarter. A fifth down every now and then. Seven accidental points.

After what happened in January, nothing else will do.

-GM

GM,

I'm finally ready to admit that I think both of the wildcard teams will come from this division--and that the Texans are my (yes, and everyone else's) sleeper pick to steal one of those wildcard spots. I, unlike you, usually like the Colts and love Peyton Manning like the quarterback I never had this century. Indianapolis is a model of consistency, and there's one driving force--and his dad owns a plantation somewhere in Mississippi.

Tony Dungy's absence will be felt about as much as a punch thrown during a baseball brawl, unlike this, which seems to be getting more pub than an Irishman. With Peyton Manning almost coaching the team--he's been known to overrule Dungy's fourth-down decisions--the Colts just need somebody to shut up and wear a headset, not somebody who actually cares about losses. I see another 12 wins and a division title.

Not since Jerry Krause broke up the Chicago Bulls has a team been expected to take such a free fall after a successful season. Tennessee won 13 games last year and could have won 15 had Jeff Fischer trusted his kicker in Week 15 and played his players in Week 17. The Titans haven't really lost much, and they'll still be physical as hell, yet Vegas expects them to win nine games this year. Nine! Nine is ridiculous. Ten is my prediction.

I like Matt Schaub more than he deserves, and Andre Johnson has secretly been a top-five receiver his entire career! Throw in the fact that Steve Slaton has never failed, and you have a team with 13-win potential as long as the defense can hold opponents to 20 points with any consistency.

Jacksonville will be the whipping boy of the division and perhaps the conference. You and I differ on this team's potential, which is why you'll make me slightly richer come December.

-JW

NFC West Preview: The Fall of the (Pueblo) House of Warner

GM,

I grimaced just thinking about the lack of competition in the AFC West yesterday, so let's move on to a division that should have just as little parity but probably somehow won't. The Cardinals should win the division easily, right? Thanks to offseason displays of generosity, less annoying business practices, and fence mending, Arizona should be expected to have one of the most explosive offenses in football again and cruise to an easy divisional title, right? I now present a little list I'd like to call "Coulda, Shoulda, Won'ta: The 2009 Arizona Cardinals." All rights reserved.

1. Kurt Warner hasn't had complete, successful back-to-back seasons in his NFL career. Really! People say he's a Hall of Fame candidate, and I can't necessarily disagree, but his affinity for fumbling, getting injured, and unpredictably sucking make him remarkably less reliable than most of Canton's greats. If you can't count on Warner, it's over.

2. As far as I know, Anquan Boldin still isn't too happy about his contract. And though he looks like less of a hoodlum than other Pro-Bowl receivers, it's safe to assume he still wants the ball and the money.

3. The division is no longer a cakewalk. Seattle promises to be better with many key players returning from injury. San Francisco promises to be better, having won four of its last five in 2008. St. Louis promises to black out several games....

4. This one shouldn't shock anyone, but the Cardinals did happen to lose in the SuperBowl last year. In the last eight years, only one SuperBowl loser has made the playoffs! (Call me the News Breaker.)

5. We actually expect them to be good! Ask the 2003-2007 squads how that worked out.

-JW

JW,

Historically, we've disagreed about the significance of quarterback play in the NFL. While I maintain that QB is the single most important position in sports, you've got it ranked somewhere between WNBA Sixth Woman and PGA caddie. I hope we can both agree, though, that where the NFL draft is concerned, striking out with a first-round quarterback pick really can set your franchise back half a decade.

That's certainly what happened to the San Francisco 49ers, whose 2005 pickup of Alex Smith in the top slot has been about as haunting as a pedophilia conviction. During the Smith era, the Niners went 16-32 and fired their offensive coordinator after every season. Smith himself missed 16 starts due to injury and 365 passes due to sucking (I looked it up!). Now that San Francisco has engaged in a mercy killing of the J. T. O'Sullivan era, look for Shaun Hill to join his predecessors by playing badly when he bothers to suit up at all.

Sadly, the hopes of the Seattle Seahawks and the St. Louis Rams also rest on QBs who've spent the last several years on the wrong side of tolerable. I know that the Rams' problems in the trenches have been well documented (a search of "rams offensive line" +"bad" yielded 234,000 Google hits), but at some point we just have to start questioning Marc Bulger's ability to walk upright without falling. And while Matt Hasselbeck has certainly hinted at not sucking (his 2005 season was quite strong, in fact), he's missed 13 games in the last three seasons and is primed to become that guy we somehow decide is "tough" just because he's constantly injured (see McNair, Steve).

The Cardinals, on the other hand, have all the ingredients for a very fine season. If it weren't for that pesky Super Bowl curse (outlined here in some detail), I'd be pencilling them in for a trip to Miami. As it is, I'll go with you and predict disaster, regardless of whether or not it makes sense on paper.

-GM

AFC West Preview: Where Losing Is An Affirmative Action

JW,

As you know, I've inexplicably been a Kansas City Chiefs fan for a more than a decade now. (If you're interested in 13-3 teams that go nowhere, I'm your guy.) That's why it gives me so much pain to introduce this season's AFC West, a division whose outlook grows worse with each passing day. From the gentle plains of western Missouri to the gangland shootings of the east bay, the AFC West has it all: suspensions of indeterminate length, three-interception preseason games, bad draft strategy, and perhaps the worst coach in the history of Super Bowl contenders. It's gotten so bad that I wouldn't be surprised to see the Seattle Seahawks take the division.

It was the Chiefs, you may remember, who were getting some buzz as breakout contenders as recently as a few weeks ago. With the Cassel trade, the emergence of Dwayne Bowe, and the summary dismissal of Herm Edwards (now playing golf and the New Jersey lottery to win the game), the Chiefs looked ready to surprise. Sadly, Cassel's hurt already, and it's only a matter of time before Brodie Croyle accidentally bludgeons himself to death with a clipboard. Tyler Thigpen, lace up those boots. Kansas City, get ready for 5-11.

Denver, too, is in something of a shambles. I don't know about you, but I wake up every morning secure in the hope that if Kyle Orton can start for an NFL team, I can probably avoid homelessness and destitution for a few more weeks. And speaking of coaches, there's a word for guys who run Pro Bowl quarterbacks out of town, suspend #1 receivers, and proceed to go 2-14. The word is fired.

Further south and west, the Oakland Raiders continue to operate the NFL's version of the Island of Misfit Toys, with Al Davis playing the part of King Moonracer and Tom Cable in for one more season as Charlie-In-The-Box. When you think about it, it's something of a miracle that Davis operates a franchise in the most lucrative sports league in America. Considering that he's looked like the Cryptkeeper for almost twenty years now, it's clear that supernatural forces are at work.

Which leaves us with San Diego, whose inevitable postseason implosion should have its own theme song and television channel. Happily, it will have its own gambling line. I'm getting rich just thinking about it.

-GM

GM,

I've been waiting my whole football-watching life for the NFL to reform its playoff seeding. I've seen 11-5 Pittsburgh host 12-4 Denver (1997), 10-6 New England host 12-4 Jacksonville (2005), and, most recently (and most despicably), 8-8 San Diego host 12-4 Indianapolis last year! Let me get this straight. You outperform a conference foe--while playing a tougher divisional schedule--and you have to go to their place?! This is willful unfairness on the part of the NFL, and there's no justification for it whatsoever. I can understand the attractiveness of the perfect symmetry brought on by an eight-division league (rearranged as such in 2002), and it certainly motivates some mediocre teams to actually try late in the season (assuming their divisions are lousy), but must we pretend that piss-poor playoff teams deserve to host a game?! It's a form of affirmative action, I tell you, and this year's AFC West winner will be the black, disabled, lesbian worker who happens to be the best in her super-protected class.

Don't get me wrong, though. This lucky lady certainly has some talent. She might even have 13-win talent, but my principles are offended that she'll only need to utilize half of her potential to get the job! If the Chargers so much as suit up for their six divisional games, they'll go 6-0 in the West and hold all tiebreakers over the Broncos, Chiefs, and Raiders. Do you see any of those teams winning seven games?!?! Of course not. This means a 6-10 San Diego team would host a playoff game! The possibility alone should cause reform! If San Diego doesn't clinch the division by Week 12--its last divisional game--Norv should be fired, LT should be traded, and Shawne Merriman should start another cycle.

As for the other teams' chances of winning the division, I think they're about as good as the Lions' starting guards winning co-MVPs.

-JW