2004 Season

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="002285a1erlcgo.gif"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>www.chapmansfriend.com</B></FONT><B>     |     </B><A HREF="default.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="www.chapmansfriend.com"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div>                                                   </div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="001d2c00dkelyh.gif"> <div> <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Marky The Greek. "><U>Marky The Greek. </U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I>2004 Season</I></div> <bR> <div> Back for more punishment and frustration. For the second year in a row, I was only able to come out "ahead" by putting all my potatoes on the championship game. But in my defense, I completely <I>nailed </I>my analysis of that game!</div> <div> Let's try to avoid having to stake everything on the Big Game this year, and come out ahead in the regular season...</div> <bR> <bR> <div> NFL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME</div> <bR> <div> I've written this before... the Super Bowl is the NFL championship game. Football history didn't begin in 1967. The Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, but they have won NFL championships. If they win today, <I>please </I>don't make it sound like they have done something they've never done before, just because there was no Roman numeral connected to the championship in 1960... Rant over...</div> <bR> <div> <B>FEBRUARY 6: </B></div> <div> RESULTS from the Conference Championships: Heh heh heh.</div> <div> For the first time since putting my picks online, I go into the Super Bowl guaranteed a winning season, due to successful picks of both the Eagles and Patriots (<B>W, W</B>). In fact, though it was the Patriots' game that was the "Ohio" in this scenario (clinching the 52.4% I needed), winning the second game gave me the cushion to be able to pick the championship game without endangering my winning margin.</div> <div> Total: <B>9-0 </B>for the week (remember taking one game 8 times), <B>59-51 </B>overall.</div> <bR> <div> I figure I can make 2 bets on the Super Bowl without slipping below the break-even. Let's use one to pick the game, and the other to make a crazy "proposition" bet...</div> <bR> <div> PHI and NE (-7). The biggest matchup disparity that I can see is in the running game. The Patriots have the 7th ranked rushing game (based on yards per game... I used to go by yards per rush but I have decided that yards per game is a better correlation), while the Eagles have the 16th ranked defense against the run. Other side of the ball? The Eagles have the <I>24th </I>ranked running game, going against the 6th ranked rushing defense. If these numbers hold up, the Patriots will control the line of scrimmage, and will be able to move the ball effectively.</div> <div> The only catch here is that if we go back to relying on yards per rush... Then it's the Patriots' # 18 ranking vs. the Eagles' #19 defense, but the Eagles' 10th ranked running game vs. the Patriots' 11th ranked defense. Not as clear-cut. I am going to assume the yards-per-game numbers are more accurate...</div> <div> In the air, the Patriots' yards-per-attempt ranks 8th, while the Eagles' secondary ranks #3. McNabb might be able to gain an advantage in passing, since the Eagles rank 9th in passing offense and the Patriots rank 14th in defense. The Eagles allow more sacks, though, and there's still the T.O. saga to play out. If he doesn't play-- or if he plays but isn't 100%-- then the statistical advantage I see for the Eagles gets cut back.</div> <div> With some hesitation, I'll end up saying the Patriots win by a score of something like 27-17, so <B>NE -7</B>. Hey, I picked the margin of victory <I>exactly </I>last year, so let's see if I can repeat this year...</div> <bR> <div> Ah, yes, the proposition bets... I love the precise, legalistic phrasing of them. "There will be no blocked punts-- 7:1 against." "The game's first punt will be blocked or tipped-- 15:1 against." "Final score differential will be an odd number-- 8:5 against."</div> <div> Really, how the hell can you intelligently bet this stuff? Yeah, I know they are supposed to be fun things to pass the time during the game, but still, they boggle the mind!</div> <div> I'll take a less esoteric bet for my "extra" prediction. Just working off the statistics mentioned above, I'll take the <B>OVER </B>on the over/under of New England's rushing yards (122). I was tempted to take Corey Dillon at 6:1 to be the MVP, but... I'm going to base a pick on sportswriters' decisions? Worse yet, part of the award is going to be based on Internet voting. Three little words: <I>American Idol </I>voting. 'Nuff said :)</div> <bR> <bR> <div> CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS</div> <bR> <div> <B>JANUARY 23: </B></div> <div> RESULTS from the Divisional Playoffs: The record will not reflect this, but I handicapped three of the four games as well as you could expect, but still only broke even...</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Steelers vs. Jets. I picked the Steelers and gave the points assuming that the Pittsburgh defense would shut down the erratic Jets' offense. The Jets' offense scored three points all game long-- pretty good, eh? But it's the fluke events, like a punt return or an interception return, that destroy effective predictions. So... I was right, but still lost the game<B> </B>(<B>L</B>).</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Falcons vs. Rams. I believe the word "blowout" was used in the prediction. Though I still refuse to consider the Falcons as a great team... this was all on the Rams (<B>W</B>).</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Eagles vs. Vikings. I picked the Vikings to make it close. I also thought <I>Clubhouse </I>would be a ratings winner (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Patriots vs. Colts. Every once in a while, you become convinced that you see something clearly even though nearly all others see it the other way. I wish I was as smart every day as when I figured that the Patriots would absolutely smother the Colts' offense. I am surprised that so many smart football people were surprised at what happened (<B>W</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>6-6 </B>for the week (remember taking each game 3 times), <B>50-51 </B>overall.</div> <div> For the record, my negative predictor capability paid off in getting Jonathan and Victoria Philiminated. Still waiting for breakthroughs on the exit poll controversy, and to meet up with Ms. vanden Huevel at a time and place of her choosing...</div> <bR> <div> Only two games this week (<I>obviously!</I>), so if I am going to reach my threshold (52.4%), I either have to win both or else bet one game much more heavily than the other. </div> <bR> <div> ATL at PHI (-5). OK, media people, you have convinced me. Michael Vick is a great quarterback. He is a human highlight reel. He can turn games around single-handedly. He may very well hold the key to cold fusion, and to solving the D.B. Cooper mystery. The only problem lies in the stats... they are more than similar to another quarterback of the past who nobody ever considered one of the greats.</div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="411" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 96 WIDTH="71"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="96" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="71" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> yards per pass attempt</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="87"><div> team's rank in conference (yards per attempt)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> yards rushing</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> yards per carry</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 38 WIDTH="71"><div> Vick, 2004</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 7.2</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="87"><div> 10th out of 16</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 902</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 7.5</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 38 WIDTH="71"><div> "mystery QB"</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 6.3</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="87"><div> 10th out of 13</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 968</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 6.9</div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> Not a perfect match, but fairly close, right? The mystery QB? Bobby Douglass, Chicago Bears, 1972. </div> <div> This media worship of Vick is just not supported by the facts, and I wish they would cut it out.</div> <div> Just for comparison, the other quarterback in this game, some Irish fella I think?</div> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="395" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 38 ><NOBR><div> McNabb</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 8.3</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 3rd out of 16</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 220</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 5.4</div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> Yes, that's a puny number of rushing yards for McNabb. He'll have to make up for that by not throwing interceptions, and by throwing touchdown passes. Oh, wait...</div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="339" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="71"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="19" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="71" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> TDs</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> Interceptions</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> INT %</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="71"><div> Vick</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 14</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="93"><div> 12</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 3.7%</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 ><NOBR><div> McNabb</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 31</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="93"><div> 8</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="71"><div> 1.7%</div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> Despite there being no statistical evidence that Vick is as good a QB as McNabb, I still have to say that I don't want to bet heavily on the Eagles. The loss of Owens does hurt them, and the Falcons have a better than average defense (I suspect this has more to do with their season's record than Vick). I'll take the Eagles, but only one time. <B>PHI -5</B></div> <bR> <div> NE (-3) at PIT. The Patriots may not bottle Roethlesberger up as badly as Manning, but I think the results will be similar. Despite being wary of taking a road favorite, <B>NE -3</B>, and <B>8 times</B>. Hmmm, hope I have made the right choice. In this scenario, the AFC game is like Ohio, and the NFC game is like Hawaii. Winning Hawaii would be nice, but whoever wins Ohio wins the election... and picking the Patriots game correctly pushes me over the winning threshold for the season.</div> <bR> <div> DIVISIONAL PLAYOFFS</div> <bR> <div> <B>JANUARY 15: </B></div> <div> RESULTS from theWild Card Round: No pick I made turned out correctly.</div> <div> None. The Chargers and Packers lost, and the Colts ran roughshod over the poor outmatched Broncos. </div> <div> I seem to be in a mode where I am a perfect <I>negative </I>predictor. Before I lose the gift...</div> <div> I predict that Jonathan and Victoria will win <I>The Amazing Race</I>.</div> <div> I predict that the 2004 exit polls... you know, the ones that found Kerry with 51% of the national vote with a margin of error of < 1%... will be found to have been completely off-track, with no evidence of any "funny business" in the vote tabulation.</div> <div> I predict that I will never, ever, share a cocktail with <I>Nation </I>editor Katrina vanden Huevel at a swanky Manhattan hangout.</div> <div> <IMG SRC="2e98cb60.jpg" border=0 width="140" height="182" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> This is fun, but you get the idea...</div> <div> Now. Negative predictor capability <I>begone!</I></div> <div> Total: <B>0-4 </B>for the week, <B>44-45</B> overall.</div> <bR> <div> I'm picking all four games, taking each game 3 times. The strategy is, a 3 of 4 weekend will nudge me over the breakeven threshold. Now, all I have to do is reverse my inability to pick playoffs, and revert to regular season form (43-35 in games not involving the Bears, who are, by chance, not involved in any playoff games this season!).</div> <bR> <div> NYJ at PIT (-9). The Jets were lucky to have gotten by the Chargers. Gotta take the Steelers and give the points. <B>PIT -9</B></div> <div> STL at ATL (-7). Normally, I'd say that the Falcons were overachieving, and that though they should win, it wouldn't be overwhelming. But the Rams seem to get blown out of a surprising number of games. I'll pretend for one more game that the Falcons are for real. <B>ATL -7</B></div> <div> MIN at PHI (-8.5). Here, I'll say that last week was not a fluke. I doubt the Vikings can win, but 8 1/2 points sounds comfy to me. <B>MIN + 8.5</B></div> <div> IND at NE (-2). The closest line of them all. The smart money seems to be saying that Manning and the Colts can finally prevail. A quiz-- how many times have the Patriots under Bill Belichick had an extra week to prepare and <I>not </I>shut down an offense? <B>NE -2</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> WILD CARD ROUND</div> <bR> <div> <B>JANUARY 8: </B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Seventeen: Uh-oh.</div> <div> For some reason, about a month ago I figured that a 12-8 record over the last 4 weeks would be enough to get me over the break-even 52.4% mark. That's what I assumed into last weekend, as early wins for the Packers and Rams (<B>W</B>, <B>W</B>), added to a late win for the Chargers (<B>W</B>), were enough to clinch it for me. When the Eagles fell flat early in the afternoon (<B>L</B>), I thought, "No problem... I only need three wins." When the Broncos faded late in the afternoon and lost (<B>L</B>), I thought, "It would have been icing on the cake... but it's already in the bag."</div> <div> Like Rick in <I>Casablanca</I>, I was misinformed. </div> <div> Total: <B>3-2 </B>for the week, <B>44-41</B> overall... Which is 51.8%. Not quite good enough. So... Hellooooo, Wild Card Round!!!</div> <bR> <div> Just one game of the two Saturdays...</div> <div> NYJ at SD (-6.5). The Chargers are, if anything, underrated, and the Jets just sneaked into the playoffs. Sounds like a convincing win to me. <B>SD - 6.5</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>JANUARY 9:</B></div> <div> All right, the Chargers flopped. I should have known... the intersection of three words. "Marty", "Schottenheimer", and "playoffs."</div> <bR> <div> I'll try both games on Sunday, and I'll make a double bet on the Packers game... I have a stronger feeling about it, and since I make up the ground rules, I will permit myself to make multiple bets!</div> <bR> <div> DEN at IND (-10). I know St. Peyton is operating, but 10 points in the playoffs seems outsized. Especially since the Colts' defense is less than stout. Indy should win, but <B>DEN +10</B></div> <div> MIN at GB (-6). Really? The fading, disintegrating Vikings at Lambeau Field, where they usually lose anyway? This could get ugly. <B>GB -6 (x 2)</B></div> <bR> <div> Week SEVENTEEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>JANUARY 1: </B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Sixteen: A very symmetrical week. I won one early afternoon game (the Texans (<B>W</B>)) and lost one early afternoon game (the Falcons (<B>L</B>)). I won one late afternoon game (the Panthers (<B>W</B>)) and lost one late afternoon game (the Jets (<B>L</B>)). A winning or a losing week? That would be decided by that horribly, horribly fugly game between the Browns and the Dolphins. They made liars out of me for predicting they wouldn't combine for 7 total points... but with a 10-7 final score, I wasn't too far off either (<B>W</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2 </B>for the week, <B>41-39</B> overall.</div> <bR> <div> I need another 3-2 week to come out ahead for the regular season, factoring the vig into the mix...</div> <bR> <div> GB at CHI (-3). I believe I swore I would not take any games involving the Bears after my 0-6 record in such contests, but even though the Pack has nothing to play for... well, have you seen Chad Hutchinson lately? <B>GB + 3</B>.</div> <div> CIN (-3) at PHI. There's a pattern developing here. A good number of playoff-bound teams are underdogs because they will probably rest their key players. To which I say, they can't rest all their good players, and can't second-string players at skill positions combined with most of the rest of the starting lineup beat <I>the Bengals </I>in Philly? <B>PHI + 3</B>.</div> <div> NYJ (-3) at STL. The Rams are still potent at home. And the Jets haven't exactly looked great lately either. <B>STL + 3</B>.</div> <div> IND at DEN (-9). Though most of the Colts' stars won't get a lot of playing time, the Broncos are sliding, and 9 points is a lot. <B>IND + 9</B>.</div> <div> KC (-3) at SD. This will sound familiar... Even though the Chargers might rest some people, I think they can handle the Chiefs at home. <B>SD + 3.</B></div> <bR> <div> Week SIXTEEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>DECEMBER 26:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Fifteen: Ah, yes, the elusive but rarely seen 5-0 week.</div> <div> Other than the Panthers game already marked as a win last week... The Bills won by a healthy margin, as did the Chiefs and the Cardinals (the <I>Cardinals? Win? </I>Does not compute...) as underdogs (<B>W</B>, <B>W</B>, <B>W</B>). And then there was the Lions-Vikings game... </div> <div> Is it mean to consider that the Lions flubbing (in excruciatingly painful, <I>North Dallas Forty</I>-style) their potential game-tying extra point with 8 seconds left was, for me, probably the best outcome possible? They tie the game, and it goes into OT, and then who knows what happens? Maybe the Vikings score a TD and I lose outright. The cold hard fact is, <I>I needed the game more than the Lions did! </I>So it's all for the best. Heh... </div> <div> Total: <B>5-0 </B>for the week, <B>38-37</B> overall.</div> <bR> <div> I stayed away from the Christmas Eve and Day games... Now out of the rest of the games...</div> <div> ATL at NO (-4). Apparently Mike Vick will not play. I am in the minority in thinking that this may actually be a plus for the Falcons, but the team has <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1952387" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/st"><U>put $130 million where their mouth is, </U></A></FONT>so we will see... Vick or no Vick, I can't see why the <I>Sybill-</I>esque Saints should be favored. <B>ATL + 4</B>.</div> <div> HOU at JAX (-6.5). The Jags ought to win, but the Jags don't seem to win or lose blowouts. Well, let me look that up... 2 of their last 6 games were won or lost by more than a TD, but one was a win against the Bears, which really doesn't count. Throw that out-- 4 of their last 5 have been TD or less spreads. <B>HOU + 6.5</B>.</div> <div> NE (-3) at NYJ. Under the they-need-it-more reasoning, <B>NYJ + 3</B>.</div> <div> CAR at TB (-3). A shootout between Jake Delhomme and Brian Griese. It's almost like Marino vs. Elway, isn't it? <B>CAR + 3</B>.</div> <div> CLE at MIA (-7). I'm not entirely certain that both teams combined can score 7 total points. Therefore, <B>CLE + 7</B>.</div> <bR> <div> Week FIFTEEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>DECEMBER 18:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Fourteen: Another bad week, though the Falcons did win big as I thought (<B>W</B>). That was the early game on Sunday... the 3 late afternoon games were disastrous, with the Rams and Jets flopping worse than I expected, and the Cardinals committing the unforgivable sin of losing to the 49ers (<B>L</B>, <B>L</B>, <B>L</B>). And the Monday night game... what was that? Blowing a 3 point lead and giving up 14 points in the last 2 minutes? Feh (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4 </B>for the week, <B>33-37 </B>overall.</div> <bR> <div> I'll pick one of the Saturday games...</div> <div> CAR at ATL (-3.5). The Falcons aren't really that good. Neither are the Panthers, but the Falcons have won the division and the Panthers are still up for a playoff spot. I'll bet that will make a difference. <B>CAR + 3.5</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>DECEMBER 19:</B></div> <div> So far, so good. The Panthers didn't win, but did come close (<B>W</B>). Now, the rest of the games...</div> <bR> <div> BUF (-1) at CIN. The Bills are hot right now, and MaGahee is finally healthy. If I think they will win (and I do), it's silly not to give the point. When you think about it, the team name "Buffalo Bills" makes no sense except as a pun, does it? Are there any other examples of this in sports? Just wondering. There are non-sequitors like "Utah Jazz"... <B>BUF -1</B></div> <div> DEN (-1) at KC. The Chiefs can still put up numbers. I think they win a shootout. <B>KC + 1</B></div> <div> MIN (-3) at DET. It's been a quite week here in Lake Wobegon... The Vikings are going through their yearly collapse... <B>DET + 3</B></div> <div> STL (-3) at AZ. It's always a risk betting <I>on </I>the Cardinals, and I got burned last week doing just that. But the Rams don't seem to play well on the road, and the Cardinals have to come through occasionally, right? <B>AZ + 3</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Week FOURTEEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>DECEMBER 12:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Thirteen: I was mistaken if the Football Gods would appreciate my humility and lack of gloating over my excellent wrap-up to week 12. Only the Panthers won for me last week (<B>W</B>). The Falcons fell on their collective faces in trying to wrap up their division (damn overrated Vick!) (<B>L</B>), the Raiders blew a 2nd-half advantage (<B>L</B>), and the Patriots really <I>were </I>that much better than the Brownies (<B>L</B>). And then the Bears... always confounding me. I refuse to pick a Bears game the rest of the season (<B>L</B>). I just checked-- I'm 0-6 in Bears' games this year. I pick 'em to win, they lose. I pick 'em to lose, they win. Grrr.</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4 </B>for the week, <B>32-33 </B>overall, <B>32-27 </B>when the Bears are not involved.</div> <bR> <div> A strange looking week... No really good upset picks. Instead, lots of teams favored by a bunch of points (7 lines bigger than 8 points), and apparently rightfully so...</div> <bR> <div> OAK at ATL (-7.5). Vick and the Falcons might not be consistent, but the Raiders suck. What in the name of Otis Sistrunk is going on here? <B>ATL - 7.5</B></div> <div> NYJ at PIT (-6). I don't think the Jets will beat them, but I think the Steelers won't run away with it. <B>NYJ + 6</B>.</div> <div> SF at AZ (-6.5). The <I>Cardinals </I>favored by a touchdown? Yes, testament to how much the 49ers suck. What in the name of Hugh McElhenny is going on here? <B>AZ - 6.5</B></div> <div> STL at CAR (-6.5). I don't trust the Rams to win this, but they should be able to keep it close. <B>STL + 6.5</B></div> <div> KC at TEN (-2). Two 4-8 teams, that's exactly what ABC was looking for on a Monday night in week 14. Where's that promo with the babe in the towel when you really need it? <B>TEN - 2</B></div> <bR> <div> Week THIRTEEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>DECEMBER 5:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Twelve: When things work out well, there's no need to elaborate. So a big thank you to the Texans, Chargers, Panthers, and Dolphins for living up to my expectations last week by winning outright! (<B>W</B>, <B>W</B>, <B>W</B>, <B>W</B>)</div> <div> Total: <B>4-1 </B>for the week (including Thanksgiving), <B>31-29 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> ATL at TB (-1.5). The Falcons are having a fine season, the Bucs are not, and yet the Bucs are favored, even at home? The line doesn't seem right, even if Griese is making things happen as QB. <B>ATL + 1.5</B></div> <div> CAR at NO (-1). Virtually a pick 'em game. The Saints are just too inconsistent for me, which means they will probably come up big this week. Still, <B>CAR + 1</B></div> <div> MIN (-7) at CHI. The Chad Hutchinson Era begins in Chicago. Here's the thing-- if Hutchinson had anything at all to offer, don't you think he would have been sent in before the past two months of watching Krenzel and Quinn (sounds like a TV law firm, doesn't it?) bumble around at QB? <B>MIN -7</B></div> <div> NE (-11) at CLE. This game is a rarity for me. I usually prefer to not take teams that I think are going to lose just for the points. 90% of the time, I genuinely believe that that underdog has a good chance of winning when I pick them, or else (see above) I really think the favorite will win in a laugher. But 11 points for a home underdog? Too tempting for me to pass up. The Patriots will win, but <B>CLE +11</B></div> <div> KC at OAK (PICK 'EM). Don't be a wuss, make a choice. The Raiders seem more lively lately. <B>OAK</B></div> <bR> <div> Week TWELVE</div> <bR> <div> <B>NOVEMBER 25:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Eleven: Disaster. All teams disappointed me... Even the Dolphins, who were my only (<B>W</B>), ended up losing the after being tied late in the game. I thought they might win, and so I lost the game in my other "straight-up" picking contest. The Browns, Chiefs, and Bengals were all flops (<B>L</B>, <B>L</B>, <B>L</B>), but maybe the biggest collapse was that of the infuriatingly inconsistent Rams, who were up big early and still lost by a few scores (<B>L</B>). Bah... But, as Mickey Rourke once said, sometimes you've just gotta roll the potato.</div> <div> Nah, I haven't got a clue what that means either...</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4 </B>for the week, <B>27-28 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Thanksgiving:</B></div> <div> The Lions-Colts game is just getting ready to start. The Colts are huge favorites, not surprisingly after their evisceration of the Bears last Sunday, but I'm not convinced they can do it again today. And yet, not convinced the Lions can work their Thanksgiving magic either. Pass.</div> <div> CHI at DAL (-3). What a putrid holiday matchup. On the other hand, better than the upcoming 1 and 9 Dolphins vs. the 1 and 9 Niners. These teams played for a <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxix" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/"><U>championship</U></A></FONT> once, people!</div> <div> I can't believe I'm saying this, but I favor the Bears. Embarrassment last week could lead to a rebound, and the Cowboys are no great shakes either. Besides, starting a rookie QB worked out well for the Steelers, but Drew Henson is no Roethlisberger. And, I think the Cowboys are wearing dark uniforms today-- never a good sign. Gulp, <B>CHI +3</B>.</div> <bR> <div> <B>November 28:</B></div> <div> Classic prediction miscalculations:</div> <div> John Zogby, late afternoon, November 2, 2004-- <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://organikrecords.com/corporatenewslies/zogbyprereweight.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://organikrecords.com/corporatenewsl"><U>"John Kerry will win 311 electoral votes."</U></A></FONT></div> <div> Marky The Greek, November 25, 2004-- "I favor the Bears."</div> <div> Hard to say which pick was the more embarrassing, really. Though we both have alabis... For Zogby, it's that in the case of Ohio and/or Florida, a combination of studies suggest that the vote totals are wildly inconsistent with either the <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc-florida.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollca"><U>pre-election polling</U></A></FONT> or the <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Th"><U>exit polling.</U></A></FONT> (No, I'm not bitter.) For me, the selection of the Bears was based mostly on the assumption that Drew Henson would be QBing the Cowboy for the whole game. With both teams having incompetent or inexperienced QBs running the offense, I figured the Bears' defense would be able to eke out a win. I almost predicted an 8-3 final score, with Chicago scoring two field goals and a safety. Pulling Henson in favor of Testaverde for the second half made all the difference-- not that he's that good anymore, but he's still good enough to get a score when the other team's offensive incompetence continually gives you great field position. (<B>L</B>).</div> <bR> <div> Let's try for a comeback today...</div> <div> TEN (-1.5) at HOU. It seems like all the Titans have anymore is McNair, and while that's not nothing, it isn't always enough anymore. <B>HOU + 1.5</B></div> <div> SD at KC (-3). Excuse me, the Chiefs are favored? I know they are at home, but the usual home-field adavantage built into point spreads is 2 1/2 or 3 points. Take that away, and what this line says is that the 7-3 team is no better than the 3-7 team. I know parity, but c'mon. <B>SD + 3</B></div> <div> TB (-2.5) at CAR. Another odd line. These teams seem evenly matched, so the Panthers ought to be favored due to the home-field advantage (plus the bye effect). <B>CAR + 2.5</B></div> <div> MIA at SF (PICK 'EM). Because somebody has to win, <B>MIA</B>.</div> <bR> <div> Week ELEVEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>NOVEMBER 21:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Ten: OK, it was the middle of the second half of the late afternoon games, and even though the Browns failed me and my hunch that it was the Steelers' week to lose (<B>L</B>), I had correctly picked the Saints and Rams (<B>W</B>, <B>W</B>) and was currently 2-1 for the week. And both the 49ers and the Packers were up <I><B>big</B></I>, leaving me with images of a nice, tidy 4-1 week. And then... Collapses in both the San Francisco and Green Bay games... The Niners completely fell apart and lost, while the Packers recovered just enough to win by... 3 points. Sigh. (<B>L</B>, <B>L</B>). This is why betting on pro football, even imaginary betting, is torture...</div> <div> Total: <B>2-3 </B>for the week, <B>26-24 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Towelgate</B></div> <div> At first I was flummoxed at the controversy generated by the <I>Desperate Housewives </I>skit on <I>MNF</I>. What had happened to my country, I thought, to make so many people completely lose their sense of perspective about a silly comedy bit? Then after a few days people explained their thinking. It wasn't the steaminess of the scene, it was the pairing of a black male athlete and a blonde actress.</div> <div> Oh, so people aren't <I>prudes </I>at all, they're just <I>bigots</I>. I feel much better now :)</div> <div> Rant over. On with the games. In fact... For each of these games, let's imagine what the skit designed to cross-promote an ABC show would be if any of these games were the Monday night game. In fact, one of the games <I>is </I>the Monday night game...</div> <bR> <div> NYJ at CLE (PICK 'EM). <I>Browns QB Jeff Garcia guns down noted Browns fan Drew Carey execution-style to put the </I>Drew Carey Show<I> "out of its frickin' misery."</I> (Yeah, I know the show's already cancelled, but I couldn't resist.) <B>CLE</B>.</div> <div> PIT (-4) at CIN. OK, <I>this </I>will be the week the Steelers get overconfident. <I>In a daring action sequence, agent Sydney Bristow is sent to Pittsburgh to discover whether Ben Roethlisberger's emergence was foretold in the Rimbaldi letters. </I>(I haven't seen the show for a while... Is that still a plotline?)<I> </I><B>CIN + 4</B>.</div> <div> STL (-1) at BUF. <I>During a visit from the cast of </I>According to Jim<I>, Marshall Faulk is forced to gently break the news to Jim Belushi that he has little if any discernable talent, and that furthermore, there is no </I><B>way</B><I> he winds up with a TV wife like Courtney Thorne-Smith. </I>(Harsh? Perhaps!) <B>STL - 1</B>.</div> <div> MIA at SEA (-10). There is no way getting rid of Wannstadt can possibly hurt the Dolphins' chances. <I>In a very special scene from </I>NYPD Blue, <I>Sipowicz and the ghost of Bobby Simone ask the Dolphins' front office what took them so long to push Wanny out the door. </I><B>MIA + 10</B>. Call it a hunch.</div> <div> NE (-3) at KC. <I>George Stephanopoulos of </I>This Week<I> challenges Tom Brady, "Who's the prettier pretty-boy, you or me?" </I>Seriously, Brady and the Patriots? Are set up for a fall this week. <B>KC + 3</B>.</div> <bR> <div> Week TEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>NOVEMBER 14:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Nine: The Steelers and Bucs came through for me in the noon games last week (<B>W</B>, <B>W</B>), leaving me hopes of another big week. Then the late returns came in... er, late games started (I'm still in election mode!), and the </div> <div> Niners, Rams, and Texans all flopped (<B>L</B>, <B>L</B>, <B>L</B>). </div> <div> Total: <B>2-3 </B>for the week, <B>24-21 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> KC (-3.5) at NO. I have just about given up trying to understand the Saints, but home underdogs and Priest Holmes sitting? Plus the bye effect? I'll try 'em again. <B>NO + 3.5</B></div> <div> PIT (-3.5) at CLE. Yes, Roethlisberger is for real. But he has already snagged a quickie Campbell's Chunky Soup ad, and there is a well-documented (by me anyway) Chunky Soup Curse. Besides, having just beaten the Patriots and Eagles, this is the perfect spot for a Steelers let-down. <B>CLE + 3.5</B></div> <div> SEA (-1) at STL. Following in the tradition of Norman "The Man" Chad, once per year I not only pick a game but predict the <I>exact score</I>. Rams 33, Seahawks 28. <B>STL + 1</B></div> <div> CAR at SF (PICK 'EM). These games, you have to make your choice. At home + bye effect should = <B>SF</B> win.</div> <div> MIN at GB (-4). Historically, you have to like the Packers at Lambeau against the Vikings. <B>GB - 4</B></div> <bR> <div> Week NINE</div> <bR> <div> <B>NOVEMBER 7:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Eight: The Bills and Bears refused to be dependably horrible, and stuck me with an (<B>L</B>) and an (<B>L</B>). But otherwise, things were looking up. The Giants crushed the Vikings (<B>W</B>), the Miracle Steelers beat the Patriots (<B>W</B>), and best of all, the Packers beat the Redskins (<B>W</B>)! Meaning that Kerry would win the election! And he did! I am so relieved that we can say "President-elect Kerry" now, and mean it... </div> <div> No, really? That whole Ohio stuff was real, not a hallucination? Damn!</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2 </B>for the week, <B>22-18 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> I could do something silly like pick against Ohio-teams the Bengals and the Browns out of spite, but... we are the reality-based party :) When appropriate, though, I'll still pick against the Bengals because, in large part, they suck.</div> <bR> <div> Accompanying this week's picks... Hoary election night concession speech chiches! Do a shot each time you hear one!</div> <bR> <div> PHI (-1) at PIT. I am now totally on the Roethlisberger bandwagon. "Though we didn't win, we changed things for the better." DRINK! <B>PIT + 1</B></div> <div> KC (-3) at TB. "We fought the good fight." DRINK! <B>TB + 3</B></div> <div> SEA(-6.5) at SF. Going out on a bit of a limb here, but perhaps being saved (due to passage of referendum) the fate of having Candlestick named Monster.com Park will inspire the Niners. " I have congratulated my worthy opponent [who never stopped for a minute spreading lies about me...]." DRINK! <B>SF + 6.5</B></div> <div> NE (-3) at STL. Oh, come on, who would expect the Patriots to lose <I>twice </I>in a row? "Though we didn't like the result, this is democracy in action." DRINK! <B>STL + 3</B></div> <div> HOU at DEN (-7). "This is not the end, but just the beginning. We'll be back." DRINK! DRINK! DRINK! <B>HOU + 7</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> Week EIGHT</div> <bR> <div> <B>OCTOBER 31:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Seven: It looked like a bad week early on, with the Rams losing outright to the horrible Dolphins and the Bears looking as if they couldn't win even if spotted 70 points (<B>L</B>, <B>L</B>). Then, however, the Saints, Cardinals, and Bengals turned around and pulled upset wins (<B>W</B>, <B>W</B>, <B>W</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2 </B>for the week, <B>19-16 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> Using my usual set of trends and practices, I have an over-abundance of games I can select this week. Narrowed down to...</div> <bR> <div> AZ at BUF (-3). Bye effect for the Cardinals, plus the Bills are playing like the New Cardinals this season. <B>AZ + 3</B>.</div> <div> NYG at MIN (-6.5). Bye effect, plus the Vikings may be logy from seeing so many swing-state political ads. <B>NYG + 6.5</B>.</div> <div> NE (-3) at PIT. I think I would pick this game even without the helpful addition of <I>l' effect du bye</I>. The Patriots are due for a loss eventually, they're on the road, playing a so-far successful rookie QB, with all of New England still distracted by the Red Sox... perfect set-up. <B>PIT + 3</B>.</div> <div> SF at CHI (-1.5). Wait a minute, the Bears are <I>favored? </I>After their craptastic last two games? Even playing the Niners, that's inexplicable. In a real Halloween horror show, <B>SF + 1.5</B>. </div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >And finally, you may have heard that this game will </FONT><A HREF="http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/el"><U>decide the election.</U></A>..</div> <div> GB (-2) at WAS. Flying in the face of the well-established bye effect, today, we are all Packer fans. <B>GB -2</B>.</div> <bR> <div> Week SEVEN</div> <bR> <div> <B>OCTOBER 24:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Six: On a roll? Not so fast, there...</div> <div> Senator Kerry's picks weren't quite as successful as I'd hoped, though I won't hold that against him. The Dolphis continue to be so bad that the Bills pick turned out OK (<B>W</B>), but otherwise... The Bengals lost, as did the Seahawks (<B>L, L</B>). The Cowboys had a late lead but my new favorite QB, Ben Roethlisberger (who I thought was great as a college senior), turned that one into a loss as well (<B>L</B>). And the Bears... </div> <div> Jonathan Quinn.</div> <div> Jonathan (The Mighty) Quinn.</div> <div> To paraphrase LBJ's comment about George McGovern, "Ah didn't know they <I>made </I>quarterbacks that <I>bad</I>!" At least with the Bears, even if you pick them and they give you a loss, it's entertaining to see them screw up. (<B>L</B>)</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4 </B>for the week, <B>16-14 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> No guest picker this week. Who's left, election-wise? Nader? Alan Keyes? Hmmm, that one has crazy possibilities... </div> <div> Nah...</div> <bR> <div> CHI at TB (-7). If Quinn was so horrid and putrid last week (and he was), why take the Bears again, other than slavish devotion to the Bye Effect? Just a hunch, for which I am sure I will pay... <B>CHI + 7</B>.</div> <div> STL (-6) at MIA. Anybody catch Miss Alli's line in the latest <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/story.cgi?show=125&story=7004&page=2&sort=&limit=" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/sto"><U><I>Apprentice recap</I></U></A></FONT>? "And...have you seen the Miami Dolphins recently? Apex could beat them. At football." Thank you, Miss Alli, for that moment of clarity. <B>STL -6</B>.</div> <div> NO at OAK (-3). The Saints are an up and down team. Last week? Down. This week? Take a wild guess. <B>NO + 3</B>.</div> <div> SEA (-7) at AZ. </div> <div> DEN (-6) at CIN. Only because I trust the Bye Effect would I pick these games. <B>AZ + 7</B>, <B>CIN + 6</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Week SIX</div> <bR> <div> <B>OCTOBER 17:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Five: Suddenly, I'm on a roll.</div> <div> Other than the Redskins, where it is becoming apparent that Joe Gibbs' idea of "strategy" at this point is to make sure you don't pit too soon before the end of the race (<B>L</B>), I came out ahead on each game. That was the case with the Lions and Chargers, both Bye Effect teams (<B>W, W</B>), but evn picking on my own I forecast that the Niners would have to win <I>sometime </I>(<B>W</B>), and that the Broncos would cover against the Panthers. Though it took a series of kneel-downs in the last seconds, with Denver in field goal range, to secure that game. Mike Shanahan: The Bettor's Friend (<B>W</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>4-1 </B>for the week, <B>15-10 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> As promised last week, today's picks are presented by <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.johnkerry.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.johnkerry.com"><U>Senator John Kerry</U></A></FONT>...</div> <bR> <div> CIN at CLE (-3). <B>CIN + 3</B>. "I actually picked the Browns before I picked against the Browns."</div> <div> MIA at BUF (-6.5). "George Bush is a miserable failure... yet even <I>he </I>couldn't have screwed up the Dolphins as badly as Wannstedt!" <B>BUF - 6.5</B>. "Take that, Jeb!"</div> <div> SEA at NE (-4). The public Kerry: "I'm a New Englander. I love the Patriots. I hope they complete an undefeated season." The private Kerry: "That weasel Tom Brady sat with Laura at Bush's State of the Union speech. One loss won't kill the SOB." <B>SEA + 4</B>.</div> <div> WAS at CHI (-1). "The Vice-President's daughter, Mary Cheney, who is a lesbian, and I both agree: Joe Gibbs looks so lost that even the Bears should beat the 'Skins." <B>CHI -1</B>.</div> <div> PIT at DAL (-3). <B>DAL -3</B>. "But Testaverde still starting... Now <I>that </I>wouldn't pass a global test."</div> <bR> <div> Week FIVE</div> <bR> <div> <B>OCTOBER 10:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Four: Who knew the President would be so good at this? He and I had a fine week. Heh.</div> <div> The Texans and the Browns won outright (<B>W, W</B>), and the Patriots and Jets romped (<B>W, W</B>). Only the Mighty Bengals of Cincinnati (obligatory season's <I>SportsNight </I>reference!) let me... er, us... er, <I>OUR COUNTRY </I>down. </div> <div> Total: <B>4-1 </B>for the week, <B>11-9 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> I nearly invited John Kerry to "make" the picks for this week, but I'm running up against a deadline here, and it's hard work to get predictions out of busy candidates. <I>Hard Work!!!</I> Maybe next week...</div> <bR> <div> DET at ATL (-6.5). Lions coming off the bye week. Instant pick! <B>DET + 6.5</B>.</div> <div> JAX (-3) at SD. Are the Jags for real? I have my doubts. Plus, their games are generally low-scoring so taking points against them seems reasonable. <B>SD + 3</B>.</div> <div> AZ at SF (-1). The Niners have looked horrible, but they have to win sometime, right? And it is the <I>Cardinals</I>. <B>SF -1</B>.</div> <div> Monster Park. Jeez. WORST. STADIUM. NAMING. DEAL. EVER.</div> <div> CAR at DEN (-5.5). Panthers coming off the bye week. Instant pick! <B>CAR + 5.5</B>.</div> <div> BAL at WAS (Pick 'em). I'm going to go with the Joe Gibbs thing one more week. <B>WAS</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> Week FOUR</div> <bR> <div> <B>OCTOBER 3:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Three: I was just fine on the Saints and Jaguars games (<B>W</B>, <B>W</B>), but... I have learned my lesson-- the Dolphins' suckitude trumps all else, even the rookie-QB factor (<B>L</B>). The Bears scored a late TD that pushed them within the spread, but it cost them their quarterback-- good trade, fellas? (<B>L</B>) And maybe Joe Gibbs doesn't have it anymore after all (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>2-3 </B>for the week, <B>7-8 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States...</div> <bR> <div> CIN at PIT (-4.5). "It's <I>hard work</I> bein' a rookie quarterback... just <I>hard work</I>... <B>CIN + 4.5</B>"</div> <div> NE (-5.5) at BUF. "I <I>know</I> that the Patriots haven't lost for over a year. Of <I>course </I>I know that! <B>NE - 5.5</B>." </div> <div> OAK (-2) at HOU. "<B>HOU + 2</B>. And don't forget Poland!"</div> <div> NYJ (-6) at MIA. "They can't make up their mind between Fiedler and Feeley! They're sending maxed missages... er, mixed messages! <B>NYJ -6</B>"</div> <div> WAS (-3) at CLE. "[6 seconds of slack-jawed staring into camera]... Ummm..." </div> <div> "Excuse me, this is Jim Lehrer of PBS. What I'm sure the President means to say is <B>CLE +3</B>"</div> <bR> <bR> <div> Week <B>THREE</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>SEPTEMBER 26:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week Two: The Giants and Jags won outright (<B>W, W</B>), but then reality set in--none of my remaining home underdogs (Buccaneers, Cardinals, and Chargers) came through for me. Though they all came close, which... well, yeah, means squat (<B>L, L, L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>2-3 </B>for the week, <B>5-5 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> Debate season is starting...</div> <bR> <div> PIT at MIA (-1). I'm not a big Dolphins' booster, but the Steelers are starting a rookie QB, and since I think they will probably beat him, why not give the point? <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/interviews/stockdale.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourd"><U>Who is Ben Roethlisberger? Why is he here?</U></A></FONT> <B>MIA -1</B>. (Actually, I think Roethlisberger will be good, but right now? No.)</div> <div> NO at STL (-7). I just don't think the Rams are <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/history.story/1980.html#debate2" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates"><U>better off now than they were four years ago. </U></A> </FONT><B>NO +7</B>.</div> <div> JAX at TEN (-6). Jacksonville seems to dictate a lot of low-scoring games, so though they probably won't win, I suspect it will be close-- closer than the lousy shave <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/history.story/1960.html#debate1" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates"><U>that demolished Nixon in 1960.</U></A>.</FONT> <B>JAX + 6</B>.</div> <div> CHI at MIN (-9). Seems unlikely that the Bears can win back to back in Lambeau and the Metrodome. The Vikings won't beat the Bears <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/history.story/1976.html#debate2" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates"><U>like the Soviets didn't dominate Eastern Europe.</U></A></FONT> <B>MIN -9</B>.</div> <div> DAL at WAS (-1.5). I watched Troy Aikman play. I booed Troy Aikman. Troy Aikman won championships. <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9610/09/index.shtml" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/anal"><U>Vinny Testaverde, you're no Troy Aikman.</U></A></FONT> <B>WAS - 1.5</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Week <B>TWO</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>SEPTEMBER 19:</B></div> <div> RESULTS from Week One: Not bad. Not bad at all.</div> <div> Betting against the Dolphins and their hapless coach was a winner (<B>W</B>), as was taking the Redskins with the Return of Gibbs (<B>W</B>). But my Saints and Ravens picks flopped like the Alan Keyes campaign (<B>L</B>, <B>L</B>). That left it up to the 49ers game... where the early score had them <I>way </I>down. I had resigned myself to a 2-3 week-- and then found out that a late score pulled the Niners to within two, after which the two-point conversion was missed. Actually, just from a bettor's standpoint, I'd rather they missed the conversion. You always worry about getting into overtime with a 3 1/2 point spread and then having the other team score a ****ing touchdown to win it. (<B>W</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>2-3 </B>for the week, <B>2-3 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> For this week, I will pay homage to The Bradford from <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show.cgi?show=125" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/sho"><U><I>The Apprentice</I></U></A></FONT>, who at the time thought it was a good idea to waive immunity in the Boardroom. Each game will be accompanied by another "seemed-like-a-good-idea" moment! (I have to have a hook for this week's picks-- I was lazy and simply took home dogs...)</div> <bR> <div> WAS (-3) at NYG. "You see, it's <I>New Coke</I>! People <I>love </I>new things, right?" <B>NYG + 3</B>.</div> <div> DEN (-3) at JAX. "Screw <I>NYPD Blue</I>! I'm David Caruso, dammit! I am the king of all Hollywood! I will be a movie star!" <B>JAX + 3</B>.</div> <div> SEA (-3) at TB. "We have been discussing this-- we feel the best way to make Governor Dukakis President will be to arrange some sort of a photo opportunity where he <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?nav_action=election&nav_subaction=overview&campaign_id=174" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.u"><U>drives a tank</U></A></FONT>." <B>TB + 3</B>.</div> <div> NYJ (-3) at SD. "What, like Buckner is gonna let a simple grounder roll through his legs? I'll keep him in the game." <B>SD + 3</B>.</div> <div> NE (-8) at AZ. One word: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093278/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093278/"><U><I>Ishtar</I></U></A></FONT>. <B>AZ + 8</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Week <B>ONE</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>SEPTEMBER 10:</B></div> <bR> <div> I purposely stayed away from the NFL season-opener on Thursday night. The Patriots favored by 3 sounded just about right, and besides, Jessica Simpson performed before the game. No good could have come from that.</div> <bR> <div> I am always at a loss to pick the first week's games, since I have no prior games to give me a clue. Fortunately, for one game, you can always fall back on certanties:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Saturday: </B>TEN (-3) at MIA. Dave Wannstadt sucks. <B>TEN -3</B>.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Sunday: </B>BAL (-3) at CLE. Didn't Jamal Lewis rush for, like, a trillion yards against the Brownies last year? <B>BAL -3</B>.</div> <div> That's it for the road favorites, promise... In fact:</div> <div> SEA (-2) at NO.</div> <div> ATL (-3.5) at SF. With nothing else to go on, home dogs are as good a choice as any. <B>NO + 2</B>, <B>SF + 3.5</B>.</div> <div> TB at WAS (-1.5). Washingtonians believe Joe Gibbs is God. I will accept their judgement until I am proven wrong. <B>WAS - 1.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> I will now follow tradition and celebrate the beginning of the season by watching<I> </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000BF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079640/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079640/"><U><I>North Dallas Forty</I></U></A></FONT>, the greatest movie ever made about pro football.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>