0 comments Terence Moore Writes the Fluff Piece to End All Fluff Pieces About Bud Selig

Terence Moore writes for MLB.com. I always get a good laugh reading his columns, because at the very end of his columns there is this disclaimer:

Terence Moore is a columnist for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

What Terence writes is not subject to approval from MLB. Sure, he works for MLB.com, but MLB doesn't give a shit what he writes. He could do a ten-part expose on how Rob Manfred is a closeted bigot who molests children in his spare time. IT DOESN'T MATTER, RUN THE STORY! That's how the reader is supposed to see it. Yet over the past few years Terence, an avowed "traditionalist" who hates all changes in baseball post-Big Red Machine, has written about how much he loves the following: a pitch clock, the one game Wild Card playoff, the All-Star Game format, and has slobbered all over Bud Selig once before. Well, once is not enough. Terence Moore has written the all-time fluff piece on Bud Selig and it's embarrassing. These two should just get a room.

I've defended Selig a few times, because I think he's done some good for MLB, and he gets mocked too much. Considering how outright hated Roger Goodell and Gary Bettman have become, while David Stern always received way too much credit for being handed the Bird/Magic/Jordan/Shaq/Kobe/LeBron era of the NBA and not fucking it up, I think Selig did a decent as commissioner of MLB. Bud Selig isn't my idea of a good time, but I also think he wasn't one of the worst commissioners in sports either. He moved baseball forward, and as much as the Steroid Era leaves a stain on his legacy, he also responded to the Steroid Era with a strong drug policy. But still...this is just too much. Terence Moore, NOT AT THE BEHEST OF MLB OR BECAUSE HE WORKS FOR THEM, thinks Bud Selig is the greatest and he's not afraid to slobber embarrassingly over Selig while making an ass of himself.

When Bud Selig isn't walking around his longtime Milwaukee neighborhood, stretching his 80-year-old legs while listening through his headphones to any baseball news he can find, he is watching 15 games a day.

There is a lot to mock here. The presentation as Bud Selig as an everyman is, of course, funny. I imagine that Selig's neighborhood isn't just a regular old neighborhood like you and I live in, but one of those neighborhoods that is really a shelter for the super-wealthy with a gate of some sort that keeps the unwanteds out. Also, I like to imagine Selig is listening to a Sony Walkman that doesn't even have a tape player.

Oh, and one other thing. It's impossible for Selig to watch all 15 games in a day. I doubt he stays up until 1am every night to catch the games. Good try, but I'm not buying it.

"I'm at home, and I have a little clicker, and I have a satellite, and I go from game to game," 

"A clicker." He has "a clicker," which I imagine he bangs on the couch cushion when it won't go to the channel he wants to go to immediately.

And if Terence wasn't on-the-nose enough with his description of Selig as an everyman, he'll just go ahead and point out that this fluff piece is about Bud Selig as an everyman. Just in case it's not obvious to the reader, here is what Terence is trying to paint Selig as being,

said the Commissioner Emeritus of Baseball, sharing his routine as just another fan.

Just another fan. And remember, no one asked Terence to write this column. This was a tongue-bath that he is giving Selig on his own accord. How this makes it better, I am not sure.

Well, Selig isn't just any fan. He spent more than two decades as the Commissioner, and he is four months into a retirement that doesn't exist.

Walking around the neighborhood, watching baseball all day. That's not retirement? If walking around the neighborhood and watching sports all day isn't retirement, then I have to wonder what Terence believes retirement to be. What Selig is doing all day, isn't that retirement for most people?

That means Selig is far from your average guy dreaming of snagging a foul ball some day from the bleachers.

As always, it wouldn't be a Terence Moore column if he didn't submarine his own point along the way. Bud Selig is a regular guy except he isn't.

(Terence Moore a few paragraphs ago) "Bud Selig is just like a regular guy watching baseball all day."

(Terence Moore now) "Bud Selig is not the average guy because he's too important and really, really wealthy."

Selig is that guy in spirit, though.

Well, in spirit I am really nice guy who is super-athletic and I treat everyone as I would like to be treated. Unfortunately, what I am in spirit doesn't matter when I'm not athletic enough to play professional sports, I can be an asshole and I'm incredibly impatient with some people. See, what I am in spirit doesn't matter, because in reality I'm not what I am in spirit.

Selig said he has been known to get a little excited at times while studying this baseball moment or that one.

"Studying this baseball moment..." I tell you, it sounds really fucking exciting just to talk about. I love sitting in front of the television, studying baseball moments. This sounds like something a real fan of baseball would do.

"Hey want to come over and use 'the clicker' to study baseball moments? Bring the fat free milk jug too. You know what? Screw it, bring over the jug of whole milk. I'm getting a little excited. There are baseball moments happening."

"I don't shout much, but I do mumble," Selig said. "Believe me, I will do that.

I'm not sure mumbling counts as getting excited. People who mumble when they get excited generally tend to be vagrants or other individuals who are slowly losing their mind. But yes, I absolutely do believe Bud Selig will mumble when he gets excited. That, I do believe. 

Other than that, I may say on occasion, 'What the heck is going on here?' That's when things aren't going the way I like them to go."

When those baseball moments aren't going right, sometimes you just have to ask "What the heck is going on here?" I like how Terence believes he's painting Bud Selig in a positive light, but he's portraying him as the same weird, quiet guy who seems aloof from everything and everyone that he was stereotyped as commissioner.  

Selig was speaking about "things" on the diamond, not in his life. Especially not his baseball life, because that has been an intriguing story.

Because as much as Terence wants to paint Bud Selig as a regular guy, "things" away from the field have gone pretty well for Bud Selig. His dad owned a car leasing business and Bud made a few bucks off of that. But no, Bud Selig is just a regular fan of baseball, walking around the neighborhood and watching television all day. Just like you and I watch baseball all day, except Bud Selig is much wealthier, has "a clicker," is definitely not living a life of retirement, and used to the commissioner of baseball.

I witnessed many of the middle chapters of that story, and this was when I knew Selig before I formally knew him. If you lived in Milwaukee during the early 1970s when my family and I moved to town, everybody in Wisconsin knew Allan Huber "Bud" Selig. He was woven into the fabric of the state. He owned the Brewers, and he was on the board of directors of the Green Bay Packers. His roommate at the University of Wisconsin was Herb Kohl, who became a U.S. Senator and the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks. Among Selig's best friends was Hank Aaron, which made sense.

And of course Terence Moore is writing this fluff piece on Selig because he grew up in Milwaukee. It's just like how Terence idolizes the Big Red Machine and so he writes 3-4 articles per year on them. 

Selig breathed all things Braves during their stay in his native Milwaukee from the early 1950s through the mid-1960s. When they left for Atlanta after the 1965 season, he got the White Sox to play games at old Milwaukee County Stadium

He eventually convinced baseball to allow the troubled Seattle Pilots franchise to become the Brewers before the 1970 season.

Bud Selig stole professional sports franchises from Seattle before it was cool to do so. He's ahead of his time in so many ways. 

I began knowing Selig for real during his journey from original owner of the Brewers to acting Commissioner in 1992 to full-time Commissioner from '98 through his retirement in January. Through it all, Selig never left Milwaukee as his primary residence.

That's so noble of him to include Milwaukee as his primary residence and not include any beach, vacation, or second homes as his primary residence. So even though Bud Selig may have multiple residences like any other baseball fan has, he is a man of the people, as seen by his keeping Milwaukee as his primary residence for tax purposes. I'm getting the warm and fuzzies now. 

Has Selig gone back to the future as Wisconsin's staunchest baseball fan?

"Well, that's the first thing people always ask me, and then they say, 'Now you can openly root for the Brewers,'" said Selig, with a sigh after a pause. "But I'm still careful that way."

Yes, be careful not to let anyone think the team that Selig grew up loving and used to own, like own in terms of him actually legally owning the franchise, would be the team he would cheer for when he's retired (I'm sorry, I meant "not really retired"). Can't have that. It's better to keep the people in the dark on Selig's rooting allegiances. 

Before long, he did something that his predecessors couldn't do, and that is, he got his fellow owners to come to a consensus on a slew of issues. He also was able to do the same with the Major League Baseball Players Association. Interleague Play. From two divisions to three, with Wild Cards in the playoffs. A replay system, and then an expanded replay system. The toughest drug-testing program in pro sports. A lasting peace between management and labor.

Outside of the one-game Wild Card, which I still hate, these is a nice list of Selig's accomplishments which have led to many baseball moments he can mutter under his breath about. 

"I am a fan, and I enjoy the game immensely," Selig said, adding that he was particularly fond of the retired Derek Jeter,

I mean, who doesn't love The Jeter? The answer? Minka Kelly. She is probably not a fan of The Jeter. And possibly Mariah Carey or Jessica Biel. Though no one can be sure since Derek Jeter still has their phones confiscated upon entrance to his home, so any complaints they had at the time about The Jeter will remain in those phones. 

and now they have what they call "The Selig Experience" at the same Miller Park that Selig built for the Brewers.

The "Experience" opened last week as a high-tech exhibit that uses multimedia to describe how Selig saved Major League Baseball in Wisconsin.

This doesn't sound self-serving at all. 

It features a 3D version of Selig in his old Milwaukee County Stadium office, and the highlights include Aaron slamming his National League pennant-clinching home run in 1957. 

A 3D version of Bud Selig. Screw muttering about baseball moments, I want to see a 3D Bud Selig for a real sense of excitement. 

"You know, it was just unbelievable when they opened 'The Selig Experience' last week, because sitting right next to me was Henry [Aaron], and right behind me was Robin Yount," Selig said, referring to two Baseball Hall of Famers with Milwaukee connections.

"I'm telling you. I wish you could have seen [Aaron's and Yount's] emotion while watching this thing. I do have a passion for baseball, and if you watch 'The Selig Experience,' I wouldn't have to tell you too much more."

"It's great to have these two great baseball players sitting there while they celebrate how I saved baseball in Milwaukee. What a great moment and everyone should celebrate how great I am."

Okay, it's not exactly what Selig means, but in a fluff piece about Bud Selig it's easy to mock how Selig seems to be celebrating himself just a little bit as well.

You ready for the money shot of slobbering that Terence will do over Bud Selig? It's basically a tongue-bath in written form. If "Open Arms" could be translated into sports talk, then sung by Terence Moore while on one knee as Bud Selig blushes and acts like he's embarrassed, then these last two sentences would be the equivalent of that song.

Actually, I've watched something better than "The Selig Experience" to see Selig's passion for baseball.

I've watched Selig.

Wow, that's an embarrassing way to end the column. I'm not sure I've ever read a person fawn over Bud Selig like this since the last time Terence Moore fawned over Selig. And in no way has Terence written such an embarrassingly devoted column because he works for MLB.com and cares to keep Selig's legacy in the forefront of people's minds. Not at all. 

Though I do have to ask the following question. Is Terence saying "The Selig Experience" isn't as good as sitting there on the couch, staring at Bud Selig, watching him mutter and bang "the clicker" on the couch in order to get it work? If so, that doesn't say a hell of a lot for "The Selig Experience."

The real "Selig Experience" would be watching a four hour baseball game and then having it end in a tie while everyone shrugs their shoulders and then walks home. Later, the decision will be made in order to prevent a tie from happening, as opposed to simply continuing to play baseball until one team wins, that there must be stakes tied to the game. Then World Series homefield advantage will be tied to this exhibition game, as if the real issue was that the stakes in the game weren't high enough and wasn't simply that the game ended in a tie. Knowing an exhibition game ended in a tie and figuring the best way to solve this problem was to raise the stakes and then tie these stakes from an exhibition game to the World Series, as opposed to simply making rules stating the exhibition game can't end in a tie...now that's the real "Selig Experience."

2 comments Bill Plaschke Also Claims Baseball is Dying, But Don't Worry, He Has Solutions

We've heard from many sportswriters about just how dead baseball is. For a sport that is dead, there sure is a lot of talk about that sport. One would think if baseball was really dying that it wouldn't create so much interest in it's death. Bill Plaschke adds to the chorus and provides solutions to increase interest in baseball. I'm not entirely sure how some of these changes for baseball will do anything for World Series ratings. I guess it's not Bill's job to create solutions that fix the supposed problem he is trying to fix. It's Bill's job to improve baseball, and even though these solutions have nothing to do with World Series ratings, these great World Series ratings will come. If baseball removes the DH, they will come.

The pressure is off, America. The Fall-Over Classic is finished.

It was a really good World Series. What I watched of it, I enjoyed. Much like any other sporting event that runs too late though, I can't always watch the whole thing live. There was no pressure, it was an enjoyable World Series. But that's not enough! Not by a long shot. How dare the World Series be enjoyable, because ratings. Ratings!

No more fourth-place teams battling fifth-place teams for a first-place trophy.

Yeah, but the fourth and fifth place teams beat the teams better then them in a five or seven game playoff. It's not a fluke if it happens in a five or seven game series...or at least it shouldn't be a fluke.

No more rules chaos, home-field confusion and seriously creepy Rob Lowe commercials.

Okay, where's the confusion about homefield advantage? The team who wins the All-Star Game gets homefield advantage. There's a lot of issues with how homefield advantage is determined, but it's a very simple idea to understand.

It ended Wednesday after the only one of the seven games that folks actually watched. 

If I'm not wrong, and I don't think I am, all of the seven World Series games were among the Top 20 shows in primetime during a given week. I have discussed this before.

You're off the hook for another year, America. You no longer have to feel bad about not watching the World Series.

Let me get this straight...no one watches the World Series, but those who do watch the World Series only watch out of guilt? Is there anyone who watches a television show or sporting event because they would feel guilty if they didn't watch it?

Even though the Game 7 victory by the Giants over the Kansas City Royals was watched by nearly 24 million viewers, that was nearly double the average of the previous six games, making this still the second-least watched World Series in history.

Which I am sure only increased the guilt those 24 million who watched Game 7 felt. Imagine how guilty these people would feel if Game 7 wasn't one of the most watched television programs during the week it aired.

Baseball's premier event was tackled for a huge loss by "Sunday Night Football," outsmarted by the "The Big Bang Theory" and devoured by the zombies of "Walking Dead."

Bill Plaschke has won awards for this type of writing by the way. I can't figure out why print media is dying.

Yes, there are many more channel choices than the days of, say, a 1978 Dodgers-New York Yankees series that drew a huge rating. But what explains a recent decline that shows five of the least-watched Series all occurring in the last seven years?

What explains it is there are many more channel choices then the days of, say, a 1978 Dodgers-New York Yankees series. The fact there are more channel choices would easily explain the recent decline in ratings for the World Series. It's not like many more channel choices is a trend that is 30 years old. It's been the last decade or so when Americans have had so many channel choices and have chosen to try and afford all of those channel choices.

This is like saying (and this is hypothetical), "Sure, there are healthier more affordable options available then 20 years ago when McDonald's had record revenues. But what explains a recent decline in revenues where five of the last seven years have been the lowest revenue earning years for McDonald's?"

There's your answer. It's right there. More options.

Make no mistake, baseball is a thriving sport.

It's thriving, yet dying. It's the Keith Richards of sports.

The Dodgers sold for more than $2 billion, then cut a cable television deal worth four times that amount. Baseball's top-10 attendance totals have all occurred in the last 10 years.

People still love their hometown teams.

IF PEOPLE LOVE THEIR HOMETOWN TEAMS THEN HOW COME TOP-10 ATTENDANCE TOTALS HAVE ALL OCCURRED IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?

So Bill Plaschke's conclusion is that interest in baseball needs to be rekindled based on World Series ratings. This despite knowing:

-World Series still draw relatively good ratings.

-MLB teams are worth more now than every before.

-People still love their hometown teams.

-More people than ever are choosing to attend baseball games.

So as long as Bill ignores the financial aspect and the fact fan interest in seeing their favorite team play live has never been higher, baseball desperately needs to rekindle interest in the sport. This because the World Series doesn't draw record-setting ratings. No one is interested in the sport of baseball, as long as you ignore those who are interested in the sport of baseball that attend games.

The problem is, they're increasingly falling out of love with the actual game. The national pastime has sadly become a regional pastime.

True. This isn't a sign that fans are falling out of love with the game, but simply choose not to watch a game between two teams they have no rooting interest in. It happens in every sport except for the NFL, because people are currently obsessed with the NFL.

Every team has plenty of fans, but when those teams are eliminated from postseason, those fans stop watching because suddenly it's all about only, ugh, the baseball.

No, you can't claim to know what a large group of people are thinking like this. Those fans stop watching because there are other shows on television they want to watch, and while they enjoy the sport of baseball, they don't care to see another team celebrate a World Series victory. There are World Series I haven't watched because I can't stand to not watch my favorite team participating in the World Series. But no, Bill Plasckhe knows what every baseball fan thinks because he's so fucking smart and can read minds. I love baseball, but that doesn't mean I will spend my evenings watching two teams who aren't my favorite team play baseball game. It's a long season. I'm kind of tired towards the end of it.

Few people drive to their local stadiums saying, "I want to see a baseball game." No, it's almost always, "I want to see a (insert team name here) game."

I never say I want to go see an NFL game. I always say, "I want to see a Team X game." I'm not even sure what Bill is trying to say here. Only 30 areas of the United States even have a local baseball team (which obviously is a point that proves just how out of touch Bill Plascke is). Someone who lives in Nebraska isn't going to drive hundreds of miles to see the Texas Rangers play on a given night just because he wants to see a baseball game. That's an important point for Bill to understand. There aren't a whole lot of "local stadiums" with MLB teams around the country. I would ask if Bill was referring to minor league baseball here, but he doesn't once refer to minor league baseball in this article.

It's 2014. I don't have to pay for a ticket to go see a baseball game. I can turn on my television. It's certainly not the same thing, but Bill is acting like the ability to see a baseball game is a rare resource when that's not true. Baseball is everywhere. I disagree with Bill's assertions on so many levels. In fact, I would argue a lot of people who attend minor league baseball games go simply because they want to watch a baseball game. But again, Bill doesn't seem to be talking about minor league baseball.

It's not that way in football, where many folks watch the NFL just because they love watching football, which is the reason the league has thrived despite not having a team in its second-largest market. The same goes for pro basketball, where folks are attracted to the fast pace and incredible athleticism even if their hometown team — say, the Lakers — might not win a game again, ever, in the history of the world.

It must be awkward for Bill to write a column knowing the facts won't fully back up the assertions he is trying to make. He's acting like the NBA Finals get incredibly great ratings compared to the World Series. This isn't entirely true. The World Series are lower than the NBA Finals ratings, but Plaschke should hold off on the NFL comparison.

People love watching football, but the NBA has the benefit of their star players being in the NBA Finals on a near yearly basis (which isn't good luck, but good marketing). The NBA Finals ratings don't blow the World Series ratings out of the water as Bill suggests might be true.

Once again this fall, baseball did not have a true World Series. It didn't even have a National Series. It had a San Francisco-Kansas City Series with a few outsiders watching from the cheap seats.

This is really true of every sport's championship game or series. The NBA Finals are really a series between the two teams with everyone else just watching. The same goes for the Super Bowl. The difference is the number of outsiders who choose to watch from the cheap seats.

Baseball is my favorite sport, the sport I covered for 10 seasons as a beat reporter. It is the most regal yet rawest of endeavors, the perfect marriage of sport and humanity. I love it, yet as a columnist for this newspaper, I have not covered a World Series for seven years

So basically Bill Plaschke is one of those people who he claims have fallen out of love with baseball. Because he lacks interest in the sport, he assumes others lack interest as well.

because it is no longer a sport that resonates beyond the love for the local teams.

Right, but that's fine and doesn't mean baseball is dying. Baseball is a regional sport now, but it doesn't mean fan interest needs to be rekindled in the World Series. It just means the World Series won't draw the ratings it used to draw.

Baseball used to be Mr. October, now it is October miss.

Again, this type of writing has won Bill Plaschke multiple sportswriting awards.

Here's hoping incoming commissioner Rob Manfred can overcome his sports stilted smugness and agree. Here's some ideas to get him started.

Here is some ideas that will help increase interest in baseball and the World Series, despite the fact a couple of these ideas won't help increase interest in baseball because they are cosmetic changes to the game that wouldn't usually affect a person's enjoyment of watching the sport be played.

Use a pitch clock to shorten the games.

MLB is already trying this out during the offseason.

This season's Game 4 required nine innings but lasted four hours. In 1960, a pressurized seventh game of the World Series between the Yankees and Pittsburgh Pirates produced 19 runs, yet lasted only 2 hours 36 minutes.

How many commercial breaks were there during this game? Also, there is no way to combat that baseball has become a more specialized sport. Teams make more pitching changes than they made 54 years ago and this slows the pace of the game. The only way to combat this would be to make each game seven innings long as opposed to nine innings long.

The simplest and best way would be to install an 18-second pitch clock, cutting down on the average major league delivery time of about 22 seconds. It would quicken deliveries, force batters to stay in the box, and make the game feel faster. Pro basketball tried this in 1954, and its newfangled 24-second clock saved the game.

I'm interested to see how this works. Now whether this would increase ratings for the World Series is an entirely other matter. If the game is faster, does Plaschke know more viewers will begin to enjoy the sport of baseball?

Increase the division series to seven games.

So the key to rekindling interest in the World Series is to increase the division series to seven games? If the division series is seven games more people will watch the World Series and fall back in love with baseball? I don't see how the hell this makes sense logically. I don't think the length of the division series has anything to do with baseball's World Series ratings or someone's love for the sport. Does Bill really think there is someone out there who says, "I used to love baseball, but now the season isn't long enough. If they just increased the season by two more games I think I could fall in love with the sport again"?

This wouldn't lengthen baseball's schedule — just reduce the days off between series — but it would fortify baseball's integrity.

Ah yes, "fortify baseball's integrity." How many people don't watch the sport of baseball because it lacks integrity? And since when does playing more games involve having more integrity?

Of the three major sports that conduct their postseasons in series of games, baseball is the only one where the first round is only five games, which means it's the only sport where six months of greatness can be erased in three bad days.

But there is also an argument that what makes football so exciting is that the sample sizes and margin for error are so small. Every game means something, so fans of football tune in to see what happens because teams only get one chance to win a game and advance in the playoffs. I don't see how making the division series longer is going to make baseball more popular.

Fans should want the World Series to be contested by the two best teams over the course of six months, not simply the hottest teams in October. The Giants and Royals were fun, but do you really believe they were baseball's two best teams?

No, but both teams won a five and seven game series. They proved they deserved to meet in the World Series. The NFL has one game playoffs and I don't recall Bill Plaschke bitching when a Wild Card team makes it to the Super Bowl or claiming the "real" best NFL team didn't make it to the Super Bowl. All of a sudden, baseball has to ensure the best teams make it to the World Series, so obviously extending the playoff season will make this happen. 

DH or no DH, make up your mind.

How the hell would making a decision about the DH create more fan interest in baseball and the World Series? Maybe choosing to implement the DH in both leagues or in neither league is a positive change for MLB, but whether both or neither league have the DH should have no effect on the World Series ratings.

It is stunning that baseball's most important series is still conducted under two different sets of rules, with no designated hitter allowed in the National League city. Can you imagine the NBA eliminating the three-point line for three games in the middle of its championship series?

It's not entirely the same thing. A better comparison would be if a three-point specialist was allowed on the home court of a Western Conference team, but not on an Eastern Conference team. MLB doesn't change the rules of baseball on an American/National League field, they just change the use of two players within those rules.

Without the use of their DH, Billy Butler, the rules change seriously hurt the Royals this October, and it almost always hurts the American League team. Of the last nine World Series, 25 games were played under National League rules, and the AL team is 8-17 in those games.

Of the last nine World Series, 24 games were played under American League rules, and the NL team is 11-13 in those games. It's not like the National League thrives under American League rules.

Not to mention, whether the DH is used or not probably won't have an effect on how many people choose to watch the World Series and whether the sport will stop becoming more popular regionally.

Give home-field advantage to the team with baseball's best record.

I don't understand how the hell this will positively affect the ratings for the World Series. Does Bill honestly think there are people who don't watch baseball or don't watch the World Series because they don't like how homefield advantage is decided for the World Series? This would be a cosmetic change that shouldn't have a significant impact on baseball's ratings.

Manfred's first act should be to end the practice of allowing an exhibition game in the middle of July, a.k.a the All-Star game, to determine home-field advantage in the most important games of the season.

Fine, let's say I agree. How does changing homefield advantage to the team with the best record increase World Series ratings? People are going to love baseball again because they like how the Giants got homefield advantage because they had a better record than the Royals? I doubt it.

That further cheapens a World Series that has been discounted enough.

Sure, fine. Will this increase ratings though? It seems Bill Plaschke has four suggestions to rekindle interest in baseball and increase World Series ratings, yet two of these reasons really are cosmetic changes to the sport and wouldn't necessarily increase World Series ratings nor seem to have to do much with why baseball is considered more of a regional sport. Not well done, Bill. 

6 comments Gregg Easterbrook Picks the Broncos or the Colts To Win the Colts-Broncos Game

Gregg refused to reveal the trade secrets behind writing TMQ in last week's TMQ. Lying and misleading are two trade secrets, though they aren't really secret. He also had a reader write in with an impossibly stupid idea that fans watching a game should vote one way or another on whether a replay challenge should be upheld or overturned. This week Gregg talks about the advantage of being at home in the playoffs, continues to update his Authentic Game standings that mean nothing except when he wants them to mean something, and just cuts to the chase and asks if teams should sexualize their cheerleaders. It's like he's asking for permission to be creepy and leer at woman half or almost a third of his age. He needs his readers to confirm it's okay to feel sexually excited about seeing cheerleaders while also claiming the NFL is exploiting them.

Longtime TMQ readers know my compromise with my Baptist upbringing is to believe sex is good, gambling is bad.

I've never understood this comment Gregg continuously writes in TMQ before and still don't understand it today. For society, sex has probably caused more problems throughout record history (INCLUDED THE TRIASSIC PERIOD) than gambling has, but I've learned sometimes it's best not to argue with everything Gregg writes. He likes sex and doesn't like gambling.

But if you must wager, take the home teams in the divisional round this weekend. They are the surest sure-thing in sports.

Unless you want to count other sure things in sports like #1 seeds beating #16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #2 seeds beating #15 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #1 seeds beating #8 seeds in the NHL and the NBA playoffs, or any of the other surer bets in sports than the home team winning in the divisional round. 

Tuesday Morning Quarterback is predicting home teams will run the table in the upcoming round, with Denver, Green Bay, New England and Seattle advancing. This prediction pertains to victory only: I don't know the lines, and the Baptist in me won't even look. 

Very holy of you.

Since the current playoff format was adopted in 1990, home teams in the divisional round are 70-26, a 73 percent winning figure. That's well north of the 57 percent rate at which NFL home teams won 2014 regular season contests.

Two things:

1. The 73% win rate for home teams in the divisional round is not the surest bet in sports. There are more sure bets in sports. I listed some above.

2. Comparing the 73% win rate during the playoffs to the 57% win rate during the regular season is a bit misleading. The team that gets the home game in the divisional round is almost always a team with a better record than the visiting team. The home teams in the divisional round got a week off because they have the two best records in their division. So the reason the 73% win rate is higher than the regular season rate of 57% is because during the regular season inferior teams are guaranteed to get eight home games and they will end up losing some of these games. In the divisional round of the playoffs, the home team is almost always a team with the better record, so that team is (theoretically) more likely to win the game due to this.

Gregg points this out, but I really wanted to point it out. Because comparing the playoffs and the regular season in terms of winning percentage for home teams isn't a great comparison.

For the divisional round, the reason the hosts are hosting in the first place is that they are the best teams.

Nope, not the best teams, just the team with the better record. There is a slight difference.

Seattle enters the divisional round on a 24-2 home stretch, while at 8-8-1, visiting Carolina is not even a winning team. If the Seahawks don't prevail, it will be the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan.

If I were someone who didn't look at gambling lines then I probably wouldn't be talking about what the biggest upset may be. Stanford over USC when Jim Harbaugh was the Stanford head coach was a pretty big upset and if Carolina had beaten the Seahawks then it wouldn't have even been the biggest NFL playoff upset of the last 20 years. The Seahawks were favored by 11 points and since 1998 three teams have won the Super Bowl with higher point spreads against them. It would have been an upset, but not the biggest upset in NFL playoffs history, much less the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan. That's an incredibly stupid comment to make, considering the NCAA Tournament has bigger upsets than Carolina over Seattle nearly every year. Of course, leave it to Gregg to be all, "I don't look at the point spreads" and then claim he can tell what the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan may be.

New England. In the postseason at New England, Bill Belichick is 1-2 versus the Ravens, 11-1 versus all other teams -- and Baltimore heads to New England for the divisional. Nonetheless, TMQ foresees a Flying Elvii triumph.

TMQ sees a Patriots triumph because they are at home and for no other reason. It's like foreseeing a Patriots triumph because their coach doesn't dress like it's freezing outside when it is freezing outside. The result may end up being accurate, but the reasoning leaves something to be desired.

The Patriots finished fourth in points scored, eighth in points allowed, tied for second in give/take. That's strong. New England is 122-38 since the start of the 2005 season, most wins by any NFL club in that period.

Come on Gregg, start quoting how the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since Spygate as if they are being punished for their transgressions still. It used to be that Gregg would point out how the Patriots can't win the Super Bowl since Spygate occurred, but I guess he's backed off that once he realized how incredibly stupid he sounded. Now Gregg has started touting what a great team the Patriots are without mentioning the "curse" he used to claim was holding the team back from success.

Belichick knows it will not be long until Tom Brady's magazine modeling agent means more to him than any football coach: if there is to be another Brady-Belichick ring, now's the time. And if the Patriots win this weekend, they play the AFC title game at home.

Which was all part of Bill Belichick's plan to win as many games as possible during the regular season to ensure this would happen. He's quite the gambler in that way.

The red flag for the P-Men is a recent trend of late swoon. In the last seven seasons, New England is 84-28 in the regular season followed by 4-5 in the postseason. Perhaps when Belichick and Brady draw nigh to another Super Bowl appearance, weariness sets in.

Yeah, that's probably it. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the postseason simply being a crapshoot due to one game deciding whether a team advances to the next round or not.

The Packers finished first in give/take and first in points scored. Aaron Rodgers hasn't thrown an interception at home since 2012. Green Bay hasn't punted in the first half at home in four consecutive outings. The Packers' worry is that their super-precise passing attack tends to peter out over the course of a game, with Green Bay outscoring opponents 310-146 in the first half, then only 84-69 in the third quarter, then being outscored 92-133 in the fourth.

For a smart guy, Gregg sure can be stupid at times. So after outscoring opponents over the season by 179 points over the first three quarters, the Packers get outscored by 41 points in the fourth quarter? Could this have something to do with the Packers running the ball more in the fourth quarter and the opposing team throwing the ball in an attempt to catch up while the Packers play a softer defense? Of course not. That would be a logical conclusion. So there is a good chance the Packers super-precise passing attack doesn't peter out as the game goes on, it's just fewer aggressive passing plays are called and the Packers run the ball more.

In fact, if Gregg spent less time spouting nonsense and more time actually doing fucking research then he would see the Packers have run the football 16 more times in the second half and thrown the ball 90 fewer times in the second half as compared to the first half. THAT is the reason they get outscored in the fourth quarter, along with statistics that show the Packers' defense allows more adjusted net yards per pass attempt in the second half of games. So not only doesn't the Packers offense peter out more than it pulls back, the Packers defense is more responsible for the Packers getting outscored in the fourth quarter. The fact the Packers give up 133 points in the fourth quarter and 215 points in the other three quarters isn't the fault of the Packers' offense.

I did 5 minutes of research and found this stuff out, yet Gregg claims Green Bay's offense "peters out" in the second half. Why can't an intelligent person simply do research rather than make shit up and hope that it's true?

Denver. If there's to be a visitor victory in the divisional round, the Broncos seem most vulnerable. Denver has sputtered in the second half of the season, while falling in TMQ's Authentic Games metric -- see below.

Denver averaged 30.6 points per game during the first half of the season, while giving up 23.1 points per game.

Denver averaged 29.6 points per game during the second half of the season, while giving up 21.1 points per game.

But no Gregg, keep doing very little research and continuing to push the narrative that the Broncos were sputtering in the second half of the season. That 1 point per game less they scored while giving up 2 less points per game is a sure sign of sputtering. At what point does Gregg give enough of a shit to just do research to see if what he claims is accurate or not? There is an argument the Broncos didn't sputter in the second half of the season at all, especially since they lost two games during both the first and second halves of their season and they scored and gave up nearly the same amount of points in each half of the season.

Having won last season's AFC title contest against New England in Denver, the Broncos may be looking ahead to restaging that event in Massachusetts. They'd best keep focused on the Colts. Danger sign: Peyton Manning's 11-12 postseason record includes the most playoff losses ever by a starting quarterback.

Which also means that Manning has been good enough to make the playoffs consistently enough to lose the most playoff games ever.

Though TMQ calls the divisional round the surest sure-thing in sports, a week later in the championship round, homefield advantage dissipates. Since 1990, hosts in conference championship games are 29-19, a 60 percent winning figure, barely above the rate at which hosts win regular season games.

No. A 60% winning percentage at home isn't homefield advantage "dissipating." 6 out of 10 times the home team wins. That's a clear advantage. It's not a huge advantage, but it's an advantage. Gregg never fails to mislead his readers who want to read TMQ and not think about what they are reading.

Players leave everything on the field in championship contests, so home teams won't necessarily be the favorites.

But they do win the game 6 out of 10 times, favorites or not. Besides, how would Gregg know who the favorite is if he doesn't pay attention to the gambling lines?

Stats Of The Week No. 1: In the 2014 NFL regular season, the 1,000-yard mark was surpassed by 13 running backs -- and by 23 receivers.

Without context of a comparison to other NFL seasons this statistic means nearly nothing other than a recitation of facts. What's the takeaway supposed to be?

Stats Of The Week No. 7: New Orleans was 32nd in defense in 2012, rose to fourth in 2013, dropped back to 31st in 2014.

Rob Ryan everyone! If his name were Rob Guyton then he probably wouldn't have gotten another season with the Saints. Instead, the Saints are just going to give him more to work with. That's the issue.

Sweet Touchdowns Of The Week: Detroit leading 20-7 in the fourth quarter, the Boys faced fourth-and-goal from the Lions 1. The "safe" thing is to kick. But fortune favors the bold! Dallas went for it, touchdown.

Fortune favors the bold, unless the bold don't "do a little dance" or are bold in a way that Gregg Easterbrook doesn't like. In that case, fortune doesn't give a shit about the bold.

All that mattered was the fourth-and-1 decision. Fortune favors the bold, victories don't come in the mail, you need one yard, go win the game! Caldwell ordered a namby-pamby attempt to draw Dallas offside, then sent out the punt unit. Outraged, the football gods caused a 10-yard shank. Dallas went on to victory.

On the day, Detroit averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap. Yet when the Lions needed one single yard to take command of a postseason game, Caldwell demurred.

I do agree with Gregg in this instance, though his reasoning that the Lions averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap does ignore that fourth-and-1 is a different situation where this statistic isn't terribly relevant. Gregg consistently ignores situational down-and-distance when making his criticism of NFL head coaches not going for it on fourth down. Caldwell should have gone for it, but to say the Lions could have gotten one yard on fourth-and-1 because they averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap on the day is bad reasoning.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Baltimore leading 23-15, the Steelers faced third-and-4 on their 26 midway through the fourth quarter. At a time when unorthodox defensive fronts have practically become common, Baltimore managed to show a wild look: one defensive lineman as a nose tackle, three overload blitzers far left of Ben Roethlisberger, three overload blitzers far right. But it wasn't a blitz, rather, a Steelers-style zone rush. At the snap, all three on the left came; only one came from the right; and the nose tackle dropped into coverage.

This wasn't a blitz, just a zone rush where the nose tackle dropped back in coverage, there was no defensive linemen rushing the passer and linebackers tried to sack the quarterback. It's totally different from a blitz and certainly couldn't be a zone blitz.

Flummoxed, Roethlisberger flipped a flare pass that bounced off Ben Tate's hands and was intercepted by Terrell Suggs. Ravens touchdown on the next play and the visitors would never look back. Sweet.

Roethlisberger was so flummoxed that he threw the ball to an open receiver who couldn't manage to catch the pass. Is it really Roethlisberger that was flummoxed on this play? It sounds like he knew where the ball needed to go.

With just one defender inside the area defined by the Steelers' offensive tackles, Roethlisberger simply could have run straight ahead, with a first down likely.

A first down was "likely"? Did Gregg even watch the game or did his "trade secret" employee who is responsible for watching each NFL game just relay this to him? How could Roethlisberger have run up the middle when there was a defender on him by the time he had dropped back? He couldn't have made the decision to run straight ahead prior to the snap because he had no idea a linebacker or two wouldn't drop back into the middle of the field and after the ball was snapped Terrell Suggs was in the middle of the field prior to intercepting the pass. Maybe Roethlisberger could have run for the first down, but a first down was not at all "likely" as Gregg inexplicably claims. Watch the game, Gregg. Just watch it and take time to know what are you writing before you actually write it.

TMQ shudders to think the 2016 election will pair Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush. As it is the United States presidential succession is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. If the 2016 race pits Hillary against Jeb, the country will be assured that four of the last five presidents came from the same two aristocratic landed families. This wouldn't be good for the republic. Pakistan will seem like an open political system by comparison.

This is an excess of hyperbole. If Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton are elected then the United States would simply have an open political system, simply an open political system dominated by two families.

Clinton did a fine job in the Senate and as secretary of state; she's highly qualified. My big worry is that she's an opportunist whose first priority is self-promotion, not the interests of the nation. One example: around the time she was leaving the White House as first lady, Clinton decried "a consumer-driven culture that promotes values that undermine both capitalism and democracy" while declaring the nation "being undermined by consumer capitalism."

Shortly thereafter, she bought a $1.7 million house and signed an $8 million book contract. In today's money, that's a $2.4 million house and an $11 million book contract. There's nothing wrong with nice houses or high income. What's disturbing is when a political leader pretends to be modest, urges other to be modest -- and then cashes in.

If being a hypocrite were to prevent a candidate from running for President then there would never be any candidates for President.

Bush did a fine job as governor of Florida and has the sort of hands-on economic experience many candidates lack; he's highly qualified. He presents himself to the electorate as someone whose ego is in check. My big worry: so did his brother.

Plus if Hillary becomes president, we'll face more years of Bill Clinton this, Bill Clinton that. If Jeb becomes president, we'll face more years of Bush family this, Bush family that. Regardless of their experience and skill, their last names should disqualify both: it would be healthy for the nation if neither were on the 2016 ballot.

While I don't know if I would vote for either candidate, if both are qualified to be President (in Gregg's opinion) then why should they be disqualified simply due to their last name? It's better for the United States to push qualified candidates out of the race rather than have a candidate with the last name "Clinton" or "Bush"? If anything, there needs to be more qualified candidates running for President, not fewer.

New Bills owners Terry and Kim Pegula can't be thrilled they must pay departing head coach Doug Marrone an extra $4 million to do nothing. Marrone's contract contained a golden-parachute clause: if ownership changed, he could blow town, while receiving a $4 million bonus on top of any salary he may draw at a new coaching post. So you'd assume Marrone waved goodbye simply for a double-dip payday. More likely he knows he mismanaged the Bills and wants somebody else to deal with the problems he created.

Or more likely than that, he knew he would get paid to leave town and there would still be interest in him as the head coach of a different NFL team. He could get paid $4 million for leaving the Bills and get paid as the head coach of a different NFL team. Gregg would do the same thing in Marrone's situation no matter what he tells his readers.

In just two years at the helm, Marrone spent three first-round draft selections -- Buffalo's 2015 first choice is promised to Cleveland -- running up a debt for someone else to cover, like a politician who borrows without any plan to repay. 

Doug Marrone didn't make these decisions. In fact, he was reportedly very much against the decision to trade the 2015 first round pick for Watkins. Again, do some fucking research before spouting off bullshit in TMQ that you want your readers to believe simply because it fits some narrative that you have pre-packaged every week.

For the price of three first-round draft choices, plus a fourth-round pick, Marrone got just two players, EJ Manuel and Sammy Watkins. Manuel doesn't start. Watkins is a fine performer, but the Bills paid way too much for him. Several quality wide receivers were available in the 2014 draft: Buffalo panicked and overspent on Watkins though standing pat would have allowed Odell Beckham Jr. to drop into the Bills' laps. Most important, the NFL is a quarterback league. Marrone left the Bills with no quarterback nor any 2015 first-round choice to employ in search of one.

These weren't solely his decisions. Buffalo has a General Manager who makes decisions like this.

Marrone went along with panicky personnel decisions, failed to develop a player at the league's most important position, stripped the franchise of future draft picks then whistled a merry tune as he skedaddled with a multimillion-dollar bonus. Nice work if you can get it.

I won't defend Marrone's record in Buffalo. Still he "went along" with panicky personnel decisions? What was Marrone supposed to do when the GM wants to make this trade? Quit? That's essentially what he did when he was given the chance. So Gregg criticizes Marrone for making decisions that he alone didn't make, then claims Marrone "went along" with these decisions when his only other option was to quit, which he eventually did...which Gregg again criticizes him for.

Postscript No.2: Watkins caught 65 of the 128 passes targeted to him, or 51 percent. Jordy Nelson caught 98 of 151 (65 percent), Antonio Brown caught 129 of 182 (71 percent). Nelson and Brown were receiving pinpoint passes from franchise-caliber quarterbacks. Buffalo's two quarterbacks were so inaccurate, Watkins was chasing passes that sailed far beyond his reach or clanged into the ground.

Watkins was also a rookie wide receiver while Antonio Brown and Jordy Nelson are more veteran receivers. I don't even understand what Gregg wants to prove here. The Bills need a franchise quarterback? Yes, of course they do.

"Trailing in the fourth quarter, Marvin Lewis sent in the kicking unit. TMQ wrote the words 'game over' in his notebook. Victories don't come in the mail, play to win, don't play to avoid losing!"

Right, because the game wasn't already over at that point. The Bengals were down 16 and couldn't move the ball, but there was hope. The hope was extinguished by this choice to not going for it on fourth down.

After last year's Cincinnati postseason flameout, I noted that as Lewis sent in the kicking unit, Andy Dalton passively trudged off the field: Brett Favre would have demanded the coach go for it. "Next season, Dalton needs to become a leader," your columnist opined. Sunday, when Lewis sent in the punting unit on fourth-and-short in Indianapolis territory, Dalton passively trudged off the field. 

After last year's flameout when Gregg suggested that Dalton yell at Lewis for sending in the kicking unit, I suggested that perhaps Dalton undermining his coach in front of the team isn't showing leadership. How is Gregg to know that Dalton didn't privately demand Lewis go for it next time when they were standing on the sidelines? Gregg has no idea if Dalton did this or not. Second-guessing the head coach in front of the team and the national television viewing audience isn't leadership.

Wonder why Dalton is 3-11 in playoff and primetime games? At this point Cincinnati backers must accept: Dalton is never going to become a leader.

Yelling at the head coach isn't leadership.

Oregon posted scoring drives of 0:21, 1:24, 1:32, 2:01, 2:11, 3:00 and a poky-puppy drive of 4:45. Though Florida State had significant extra time to rehearse for the Blur Offense, the Seminoles' defense seemed stunned, the front seven "sucking air" -- gasping for breath -- by midway through the second quarter.

They may have been prepared for it, but it doesn't mean they were capable of stopping it. There is a difference in preparing for the Blur Offense and actually being able to get off the field against the offense.

Oregon style muddle-huddle deuce plays should be employed in short field goal attempt situations.

Oregon has a snapper, holder and kicker at the center; three blockers and one back wide on each side. If there are less than four guys across from either outside set, the snapper hikes to the holder, who throws to the back on that side; if both sets are properly defended, Oregon kicks. That both sides often aren't properly defended -- they weren't by Florida State, two points scored -- suggests the muddle-huddle would work at least sometimes in the pros. But NFL coaches don't want to use this set, or the similar swinging-gate set, for status reasons. At press conferences they don't want to hear, "You're using college trick plays."

So this is why NFL teams don't use this formation? NFL teams are fine with hiring college coaches who bring their college offense and offensive philosophies to the NFL, but they just don't want to be seen as running college trick plays? That's what I am to believe it seems. I think if NFL teams are fine with hiring coaches who are from college and intend to bring their college philosophies with them to the NFL, then those NFL teams would be fine using college trick plays.

The Alabama-Ohio State side of the semis came down to one team being bold while the other played it "safe," and just saying those words tells you what you need to know. 

No, because you didn't say which team was safe and which team was bold.

Well into the 2012 regular season, John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron. This move, viewed as shocking at the time, seemed to fire up the Ravens, and proved essential to their Super Bowl run.

It was shocking and Gregg claimed at the time that John Harbaugh was shifting blame off him on to Cam Cameron. It's interesting how Gregg leaves out any criticism he had at the time about this move. Well, it's not interesting, this is just a typical thing Gregg does in an effort to mislead his readers and remove any information from a discussion that may end up making him look bad. Ego before all else. Mislead readers and leave out information that may make Gregg look bad while linking information in TMQ that makes Gregg look good. Here's what Gregg wrote at the time:

And it wasn't just players who quit. Many coaching staffs quit on Sunday's games, too. Norv Turner, job in jeopardy, nevertheless looked bored on the sideline as his charges were embarrassed at home. Chan Gailey has acted all season as though he was fired last season. John Harbaugh was more concerned with shifting blame than fixing his team.

By firing Cameron now -- rather than this past offseason, when the offensive coordinator position could have turned over in an orderly manner -- Ravens coach John Harbaugh sent the signal that he expects yet another playoff collapse and wants an excuse lined up. At the postgame media event following the playoff collapse Harbaugh/East appears to expect, he can blame Cameron for the team's troubled offense. Firing an assistant coach just before the playoffs isn't a bold move to invigorate the team. It's a desperate move about blame shifting. 

Then Gregg later wrote this:

John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron midseason, trying to make the Ravens' plodding offense his fault: though Baltimore averaged 25 points under Cameron, and has averaged 23 points since. 

But now this move that was about blame shifting in 2012 was "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention that the shocking move John Harbaugh made in 2012 endured the boring "blame shifting" criticism from Gregg? Of course not, because it worked out. Gregg has no beliefs, simply criticism based on whether something works or not. Gregg didn't think this shocking move would work in 2012, but now he's touting the move as "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention his criticism of Harbaugh for blame shifting and how he accused Harbaugh of giving up on the season? Of course not! That's Gregg Easterbrook. When he's correct, it gets linked, when he's wrong it never gets mentioned again in an effort to cover up for the fact his bullshit "blame shifting" criticism isn't always accurate.

Next Monday's inaugural CFP title tilt will pit Oregon versus Ohio State -- which along the sidelines means sex-bombshell cheerleaders versus cheerleaders in traditional outfits.

Hopefully Gregg won't be too distracted by the sight of exploited women who are half or one-third his age that he doesn't pay attention to what happens on the football field. I'm kidding of course. Even if Gregg watches the whole game (or has his "trade secret"/employee watch the game for him) then he still will have inane observations that have the potential to be inaccurate.

Owing to its Nike-driven marketing focus, Oregon has led college sports both toward dazzling flashy uniforms and helmets, and toward scantily attired cheerleaders. Is the latter a good idea?

I don't know, they are cheerleaders. What they wear is irrelevant to me when I'm watching a football game.

Professional cheerleaders ought to exude sex appeal. They are after all professionals, and the dancing girl who shows lots of skin has a long history in entertainment, at least as far back as vaudeville. High school cheerleaders should not show skin.

So the same cheerleaders who Gregg believes are exploited by the NFL should be further exploited by exuding as much sex appeal as possible? After all, it IS their job and they are specifically hired/exploited (in Gregg's opinion) to do this job.

Obviously teens will have sex on the brain no matter how often adults wag their fingers, but sexualizing high school sports is a step one hopes is never taken.

But if high school cheerleaders don't show skin, then how will Gregg know if they are showing the proper amount of cheerleader professionalism required for their high school team to win the game?

That leaves college cheerleaders. They're adults legally, and sociologically more like grown-ups than kids. College women should make their own choices about everything, including whether they want to dance half-naked on national television. But considering that football factories are already exploiting players for income, should colleges also sexualize their cheerleaders in order to rev up crowds and ratings?

Do college cheerleaders who wear less clothing really rev up the ratings for a game? Are there people who watch a football game specifically to see 30 seconds of each team's cheerleaders? I can't believe Gregg believes college cheerleaders who wear less clothing will rev up ratings. I'm dubious about this claim.

Tweet your views to @EasterbrookG.

Tweet your view to Gregg so he doesn't feel bad when he's ogling a 19 year old college student who should make her own choice about anything, like for example, whether she wants to date a 61-year old man. Make Gregg feel better about himself and his urges to find these women sexy. It's not pervy, it's normal and Gregg has the Tweets to prove it!

Bart Starr Can Only Dream Of Under Armour Cold Gear: Not many teams that stage a 99-yard touchdown drive, then lead by 13 points in the second half and go on to lose: Detroit found a way.

That's a pretty specific set of criteria a team must meet, so I would say this doesn't happen often.

Falling behind 24-20, the Lions got the ball back on their 23 with two minutes remaining, holding two timeouts. Here's what happened: short pass, short pass, deep incompletion, short pass, short incompletion, short pass, short pass, fumble and Dallas sends in the victory formation. Seventy-seven yards were needed and every call save was a short pass -- that's the "safe" thing! Ye gods.

I'm sure the Lions never thought to throw the ball deep in this situation. I'm sure it never crossed their mind. If only Gregg Easterbrook were around to remind the Lions to throw the ball deep late in the game when needing to score a touchdown.

Does Gregg really believe the Lions were trying to do the safe thing by throwing short? Does it get through his thick skull that the Lions couldn't go deep because the Cowboys had taken the deep ball away? Matthew Stafford could have just thrown the ball deep, but it very well could have resulted in a turnover. I joked on Twitter the Lions should just throw it deep to Calvin Johnson, but it's not always possible to just sling a deep pass. It's not that the Cowboys expected short passes, it's just they wanted the Lions to throw it short. The Lions were not being safe, they were trying to score without committing a turnover.

Authentic Games Standings: Carolina may have reached the divisional round but still isn't included. How can an NFL team that does not have a winning record in January be considered Authentic?

Because the Authentic Games Standing are a farce?

Today's column lead notwithstanding, the Authentic Games index warns of an Indianapolis upset at Denver.

So for those of you keeping score (me), that is three Super Bowl predictions from Gregg AND he just picked the Broncos to beat the Colts, but wants to warn his readers that the Colts could beat the Broncos. What the fuck does this even mean? "Today's column lead notwithstanding," does that mean "My previous opinion not withstanding"? So ignoring Gregg's previous opinion, here is another opinion. There are two options. The Colts could beat the Broncos or the Colts could lose to the Broncos. Gregg Easterbrook has managed to now predict both outcomes could occur. Thanks for the contribution, now go away.

The funny part is I just know Gregg is going to take credit for whatever happens in the Colts-Broncos game. He'll be sure to crow about how right he was either way, notwithstanding the fact he essentially predicted that both possible outcomes could occur, so he really predicted nothing.

On third-and-1 in the fourth quarter, zebras called defensive pass interference against Dallas. They began walking off the foul to set up a Detroit first-and-10 on the Dallas 34, which would have put the Lions in command. Then referee Pete Morelli announced, without explanation, that he was picking up the flag.

Key issue: Was there pass interference? TMQ thinks no. Despite the popular misconception, NFL pass defenders do not need to turn to the ball -- face-guarding is legal in the pros. (It's not legal in NCAA or NFHS play; these kinds of confusions are one reason football rules should be simplified and standardized.) Boys linebacker Anthony Hitchens made contact with Lions receiver Brandon Pettigrew, but the contact seemed incidental.

Key fact about the play: Pettigrew was never open. Hitchens had him tightly covered all the way down the field. Defensive pass interference usually entails a desperate defender trying to prevent an open man from making the catch. Hitchens had Pettigrew so well covered that incidental contact was inevitable.

There is a very thin line between covering a receiver so well that incidental contact is inevitable and covering a receiver to where the incidental contact is part of the coverage and means this is pass interference. Hitchens had his hands on Pettigrew as the ball got closer to him. It didn't seem like incidental contact to me and Mike Pereira seemed to agree.

I am out of here. Biggest call was the DPI pickup. It was DPI and it was defensive holding as well. Not good. Flying back to Sac tonight.
— Mike Pereira (@MikePereira) January 5, 2015

I can understand why Lions fans are salty and Gregg's explanation doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't incidental contact because Hitchens was extending his arms out to grab Pettigrew with his hand away from the football. He wasn't fighting for position to make the catch and this wasn't incidental contact to me. Of course, Pettigrew did have his hand on Hitchens facemask as well.

Next Week: If right about the divisional round, I will say I told you so. If wrong, I will change the subject.

Oh, don't I know it ever so well. 

4 comments In Honor of Thanksgiving, Gregg Easterbrook Invites The Truth Over For a Meal and Later Murders It With His Lies and Deception

Well, it turns out Gregg Easterbrook's Authentic Games Super Bowl selection from the AFC just lost to the Raiders. It's a good thing that Gregg's Authentic Games metric changes every week, because now he has a few more chances to correctly guess the Super Bowl matchup. Actually, no worries, because Gregg's Authentic Games metric doesn't care that the Chiefs just lost to the worst team in the NFL. What a great metric to determine the best teams in NFL! This week Gregg is thankful for exciting games on Thanksgiving, updates his Authentic Games standings, and really I could stop writing now because here's the column. It's TMQ. It sucks and frustrates me. It probably always will. But hey, it's Thanksgiving weekend so I will find one thing in this column that I am thankful for. That is my vow.

Many Thanksgiving Day games have been woofers. Not 2014. This year, Thanksgiving offers playoffs in November.

It's only November and Gregg is talking about the playoffs taking place? Is this 2014 NFL Playoffs Creep? How dare Gregg Easterbrook become a part of the 2014 NFL Playoffs Creep. He should be ashamed of himself.

Philadelphia Eagles at Dallas Cowboys pairs 8-3 teams and will decide first place in the NFC East. Seattle Seahawks at San Francisco 49ers pairs 7-4 teams and, considering this season's wild-card logjam, is close to an elimination contest for both clubs.

Nope, it's "close" to an elimination contest in that it isn't at all an elimination contest because there will still be four games played after this one.

Philadelphia-Dallas should be an entertaining shootout, matching the league's fourth- and sixth-ranked offenses. The winner will hold first place in the division. The loser will be 8-4, 

Watch out! Gregg can count!

A shoddy team from the NFC South will host a postseason contest while several winning NFC teams do not receive a postseason invitation. The Boys-Birds losers get an inside track to a wild card. But the Boys-Birds losers need to go 3-1 down the stretch, since a 10-win season is not likely to cut it in the NFC this season.

The Boys-Birds loser has the inside track to a wild card until they lose their next two games, in which case they won't make the playoffs. My point is this is an important game, but it's not like if the Eagles win then they will have the NFC East or even a wild card spot locked up. The game is important, but there's no "inside track" to a wild card here, because the winner of Seattle-San Francisco will also be 8-4. If the Cardinals win the NFC West and the winner of the Seattle-San Francisco game wins their next game and the Eagles lose their next game (after beating the Cowboys on Thanksgiving), while the Cowboys win their next game, then all three teams will be 9-4 and the "inside track" doesn't exist. My point is there is still 25% of the games to be played after Thanksgiving day.

Tension is higher in the Seattle-Santa Clara contest. These teams met for last season's NFC title, a down-to-the-wire event many considered the real Super Bowl of last season.

Oh really? "Many" considered this game the real Super Bowl and were discounting the 15-3 Denver Broncos led by a Hall of Fame quarterback and the best offense in NFL history? I must have forgotten that "many" were simply discounting the Broncos. I learn so much reading TMQ.

Now both are staring at the taillights of the Arizona Cardinals. The loser of this Bluish Men Group-Squared Sevens game will have five defeats and likely need to win out for a wild-card berth. Athletes boast about winning out, but it's not a good master plan, especially since Seattle and Santa Clara face each other again in two weeks.

Maybe I'm stupid, but did Gregg write that "winning out" meaning, "Winning the rest of the games they play" is NOT a good master plan? I don't think either team is planning on losing Thursday evening just so they have the chance to try and win out the rest of the games. So no, the master plan probably will never be to lose a game and then try to win the rest of the games.

Will the home field equate to Detroit, Dallas and Santa Clara wins?

Yes, they will Gregg. There's no point in even playing the games because the home team is definitely going to win.

Not necessarily. Since the three-game Thanksgiving format was implemented in 2006, turkey-day hosts are 13-11. 

Whaaaaaaaat? Thanks for clearing up the misconception I didn't have about the home field advantage equating to a win for Detroit, Dallas and Santa Clara.

That 54 percent home victor performance on Thanksgiving is below the typical winning share for home teams. For instance, in the 2013 regular season, home teams won 60 percent of the time. And it's well below home-team outcomes for all Thursday games that are not held on Thanksgiving.

Gee, if only there were a way to chalk this up to something. I know! How about pointing out that two of the teams that have played on every Thanksgiving since 2006, Dallas and Detroit, have five winning seasons between them in that time? Maybe the fact two teams that traditionally have played home games on Thanksgiving since 2006 have not been very good during that time? Detroit has only had a winning record once, so it's mostly on them. It would be crazy to chalk up the lower home winning percentage for home teams on Thanksgiving to something as logical as this.

That Detroit always gets a Thanksgiving host date, and the Lions have been awful in many recent seasons, dragging down the turkey-day home team performance statistics. 

See, Gregg DOES come to this conclusion, but only after beating around the fucking bush as much as possible. Rather than just state WHY home teams on Thanksgiving don't have a winning percentage comparable to home teams playing on non-Thanksgiving Thursday, Gregg has to ask the question, beat around the bush about why and then finally get to the right answer. It's like he is killing space, but Gregg wouldn't do that would he? Not when he has all this NFL knowledge just waiting to burst out on to the computer screen.

In other football news, if the playoffs began today, 4-7 Atlanta would host a playoff game while five 7-4 teams -- the Browns, Steelers, 49ers, Lions and Ravens -- would not reach the postseason at all. Why is a seeded playoff format a forbidden thought to the NFL?

Why is Gregg trying to predict which teams will make the playoffs when there are still five games to play? Yet again, Gregg is guilty of 2014 NFL Playoffs Creep. It's only the end of November and Gregg is talking about the playoffs that don't even start until 2015. It's just like showing the Rockettes' Christmas Show in early December or late November. It hasn't happened yet, so don't talk about it or else that's CREEP!

Stats Of The Week No. 5: The AFC North is 28-15-1; the NFC South is 13-30-1

I'm not taking anything away from the AFC North. It is clearly a stronger division this year (and that's important to note. THIS YEAR it is a stronger division. These things are cyclical), but also know that the AFC North is playing the NFC South head-to-head, so these records may be exacerbated by one of the best divisions playing one of the worst divisions during the season. It doesn't matter. The NFC South sucks, but it's important to know that these two divisions are playing each other this year.

Stats of the Week No. 8: Atlanta is 4-0 versus the NFC South, 0-7 versus all other divisions.

See? This puts things in perspective a little bit and helps prove my point. The AFC North is 10-1-1 against the NFC South this year. Obviously those games can't be removed, but when not playing the NFC South the AFC North is 18-14, while the NFC South is 12-20 against other divisions. This is still a terrible number, but puts the AFC North record in a little more perspective.

The Broncos seem to have a playbook just for deuce tries: under Peyton Manning, Denver is 4-of-5 when going for two.

Or the Broncos just have a really good Hall of Fame quarterback who is good at converting two-point conversions.

Touts lauded the return of Josh Gordon, with 120 receiving yards. Two of Brian Hoyer's three interceptions were errant throws targeted to Gordon. in both instances he might have broken up the pass but instead just watched passively as the ball was picked off. When a pass is errant, a wide receiver should turn into a defensive back. Gordon seems to consider this beneath him.

I like how Gregg's takeaway from these two plays is to blame the receiver for not turning into a defensive back and he doesn't blame Brian Hoyer for throwing the fucking errant pass. Maybe Josh Gordon should have played defense better, but Hoyer threw the damn interception. Most of the blame should go to him.

More importantly, Gregg is performing his weekly lying and deceiving tricks. Someone please tell me how the holy hell Josh Gordon was supposed to "turn into a defensive back" and stop this interception from happening. Was he supposed to turn into fucking Superman and fly ahead to push the Falcons player away from the football? It was well overthrown and Gordon couldn't have broken up the pass. As usual, Gregg wants to criticize and hope no one follows up to see if he's misleading his audience or not.

Now it's Detroit leading 3-0 at New England. The Flying Elvii face third-and-goal on the Lions 4. Presnap, Detroit is confused -- linebacker Josh Bynes is gesturing madly to the secondary. Just call time out! Continuing to gesticulate, Bynes turned his back on the opponents. Word to the wise: Do not turn your back on Tom Brady. He immediately signaled for the snap and threw an easy touchdown pass to tight end Tim Wright, the man Bynes should have guarded.

While agreeing with the point Gregg is trying to make, this isn't fucking basketball. There may be no player that Bynes is supposed to "guard." Sometimes defensive players don't have players they "guard" because this isn't basketball and teams run defensive schemes that are zone schemes. But of course, Gregg doesn't know this and just assumes defensive players are always "guarding" a man.

Also, I think Gregg meant to call him "hard-working undrafted free agent" Josh Bynes. I'm sure it's coincidence he didn't mention Bynes' draft position.

One other thing. Gregg doesn't think anyone can look at video to prove he is misleading his readers. Look. Bynes back was not to Tom Brady. He was looking at Brady at the snap. He went right and should have gone left.

The next time New England reached the Lions' 4, Wright split wide. Across from him was safety Glover Quin, who, being a safety, won't get any safety help; at any rate there wasn't any other defensive back on that side of the field who didn't have a man to guard. At the snap, Wright did a quick down-and-out. Quin stood like a piece of topiary, covering no one, as Wright scored again. 

This is a perfect example of Gregg Easterbrook criticizing an NFL team while not recognizing the type of defense that team was running. I know it's shocking to Gregg, but he is wrong sometimes. First off, the ball was on the Lions' 8 yard line not the 4 yard line, so Gregg is factually incorrect as usual. Second, Quin was in zone coverage. He clearly didn't just stand there, he was in his zone with a linebacker in front of him also running zone coverage. Also, there was no "guarding" because it was a zone defense. The defenders were guarding a zone, not a man. And for the third thing that Gregg was wrong about on this play, there WAS another defensive back on that side of the ball who didn't have anyone to cover in his zone. There was no other Patriots player on the screen in the left side of the end zone when Tim Wright caught that pass.

So Gregg has managed to get the yardage, the Lions' coverage, and his description of this play incorrect. Basically, there was nothing about the Patriots' touchdown that he described accurately. I'm sure many of his loyal readers will simply believe Gregg Easterbrook isn't misleading them and go spout off knowledge about how Lions' defenders didn't "guard" their man. Such is life with a trusted writer who misleads and lies to his audience in order to churn out a weekly column.

Last week at Indianapolis, the Patriots huddled up and mostly ran a heavy package of two tight ends and a fullback. That's the film Detroit looked at during the week.

Gregg claims to know the exact film the Lions watched during the week. Knowing the Patriots change offensive tactics on a weekly basis, I find it hard to believe the Lions only watched last week's game tape. But hey, Gregg makes up shit knows more than I do, right?

Sunday, New England used a no-huddle hurry-up with four or five wide. The game was a 1 p.m. start in late November, which means declining winter sun may be in a receiver's eyes. From about Veterans Day on, the coach who leaves nothing to chance sends someone to the field the day before the game to chart the sun, as perceived from the field, as it declines during the hours of the contest. Sunday, in the second quarter, a Detroit receiver was sent deep where, looking back, the sun was blinding: drop. New England passes went to shaded areas of the field.

Gregg wants to know why NFL teams have such a large staff? There's the justification for NFL teams having such a large staff. Somebody has to chart the sun.

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay -- Part 1" just opened, the most recent in the doomsday genre that has assimilated Hollywood, television and novel writing. The "Hunger Games" books and movies denounce use of violence for mass entertainment. And hey, come be entertained by the glorified violence! 

I haven't read the books, but my understanding is that "The Hunger Games" movie is a work of fiction that isn't intended to portray a life lesson, so who gives a flying shit?

Then there's "Snowpiercer." Marketed as a highbrow, philosophical doomsday film, "Snowpiercer" contains a stark warning to humanity: After the apocalypse, nothing will make sense. Some kind of environmental blunder triggered an instant ice age that killed all but a few thousand people. They endlessly ride around the planet aboard a huge train powered by a perpetual motion engine that requires no fuel. If the world was suddenly covered with ice, why were capital and resources devoted to building a train track rather than, say, protective structures? Future technology can devise a perpetual motion engine, yet everyone has forgotten about power plants that burn coal to generate heat.

It's almost as if this movie is a work of fiction and any attempt at extracting reality from the movie is the fault of the person attempting to extract this reality.

The economics make least sense. The deep philosophical part is that the poor live in the back of the train, the middle class in the middle and the 1 percent in luxury up front. If society collapsed, wouldn't the money held by the rich become worthless?

Yes Gregg, but the power they have is still worth a lot. Power is the real money. Surely Gregg Easterbrook understands this principle. He is well-paid to write TMQ, so people think because he has this power it means he is smarter than the average football fan. See, the power Gregg has by writing TMQ means he is given qualities that he wouldn't otherwise have if TMQ was written by some dude on a blog.

Trailing 17-0 at Philadelphia, Tennessee punted on fourth-and-1 from its 34. Trailing 27-17, the Flaming Thumbtacks took the field goal on fourth-and-goal from the Nesharim 2. Tennessee entered the contest 2-8, yet coach Ken Whisenhunt used hyper-conservative tactics as if holding a late lead in the Super Bowl.

And to be clear, if a team used hyper-conservative tactics holding a late lead in the Super Bowl then Gregg would criticize that team for using hyper-conservative tactics. So Gregg doesn't really even agree with his comparison for how Whisenhunt was coaching.

Trailing 7-3 in the second quarter at New England, Detroit faced fourth-and-goal on the Patriots 2, and took the field goal. New England entered the contest as the league's second highest-scoring team -- touchdowns, not field goals, defeat high-scoring teams.

Pulling within 24-21 with 3:23 remaining versus Green Bay, Minnesota prepared to kick off following roughing the passer on a deuce. That meant the Vikings teed up on the 50-yard line. Onside! Onside! Worst-case for an onside from midfield just isn't that bad.

Two important points I believe Gregg misses:

1. He just stated that touchdowns, not field goals defeat high-scoring teams. Giving the Packers, another high-scoring team, a short field is also not a way to defeat a high-scoring team.

2. An onside kick does seem smart here, unless the Packers were expecting an onside kick, in which case the odds of success decrease. Gregg seems to consistently have difficulty understanding the success of an onside kick often depends on whether it is expected by the opposing team or not. If the Packers expect the onside kick here, the odds of success decrease.

Why Do Corners Look Into The Backfield? TMQ complains about corners looking into the backfield. Prep and college players may do this owing to lack of experience. Why do NFL players do it?

Cornerbacks will sometimes try to read the quarterback's eyes, but I think most of the time Gregg claims a cornerback "looks into the backfield" that the corner is usually not playing man defense and is in zone coverage of some sort. As I showed earlier, Gregg is terrible at figuring what defenses are run in the NFL, so I'm quite certain he's mistaken "looking into the backfield" for being in zone coverage. As always, Gregg's football knowledge is great as long as you don't look into the claims he makes in TMQ.

On T.Y. Hilton's 73-yard touchdown reception that led to his "cradle the baby" celebration, Jacksonville corner Dwayne Gratz was busy looking into the backfield as Hilton blew past. NFL corners know that future bonus offers will be heavily influenced by their interception numbers.

Does Gregg even know what he's talking about? "Future bonus offers will be heavily influenced by their interception numbers." What "bonus offers"? Is he talking about a contract extension? If so, the signing bonus the player receives isn't determined by only interceptions.

Looking into the backfield is a way to generate interceptions -- the corner may be able to read the quarterback's eyes and jump a short out. If looking into the backfield generates an interception, the corner benefits; if it causes a long pass completion, too bad for the team.

Gratz was not looking in the backfield, but was running either short man coverage or zone and expected safety help over the top. Look at the video. At the end of the video, the analyst even says, "Dwayne Gratz, wasn't totally his fault. His safety didn't help him."

It simply annoys me that there are idiots who read TMQ who will go around spouting bullshit about corners "looking into the backfield" because they think Gregg Easterbrook knows what the hell he is talking about, which he clearly doesn't. Gratz expected safety help and it is clear from looking at the coverage the Jaguars were running that he wasn't in man coverage on Hilton. Yet, Gregg keeps spewing nonsense in the place of facts.

Nobody likes to think about this stuff. In the short term these problems can be ignored, and the American political system is good at ignoring problems. But the longer pension reforms are put off, the worse the bailouts will be.

The Netherlands has a secure pension system because each generation is required to pay for itself. In the United States, the retired expect to be subsidized by the young. Millennials, why aren't you rebelling against this?

Because the retired and those going to be retired soon are the people holding the power. There aren't too many Millennials in Congress who can push through pension reform. But great question that ignores one of the most obvious answers. It's kind of hard to make changes when those in power who can make the change are those who also benefit from no change being made.

TMQ Right on a Distressingly Easy Prediction: Last month my Atlantic Monthly article on longevity trends noted that Social Security and Medicare have between $3.2 trillion and $8.3 trillion in unfunded liabilities,

The Dangerous Safety Device: Years ago for the Washington Monthly I did a story about an OSHA mandate that backfired and caused a workplace fatality.

A lot of pimping out of Gregg's other work in this TMQ.

The urban myth of being "thrown clear of the crash" is nonsense: being thrown from a crash makes a person 25 times more likely to die. (Your body is moving 50 miles an hour, passes through a window and then impacts concrete.) "I don't need to buckle up because this is a short trip" is also urban myth. Most traffic fatalities occur within 25 miles of home.

True, but this is probably because most people only drive within 25 miles of their home.

And please don't say "no one can tell me what to do inside my car." That's true if you drive exclusively on private property. State and federal law both are crystal clear that, on public roads, drivers must obey traffic and safety rules.

True, but I believe if I am over the age of 21 then I should be able to decide if I want to wear a safety belt or not. I don't need the government protecting me. But yes, the law says drivers and passengers have to wear a safety belt.

air bags reduce the probability of death by approximately 16 percent in direct-frontal impacts and 9 percent in partial-frontal impacts." Levitt and Price established that seat belts were much more effective than generally assumed, while airbags were overrated.

Why are auto regulators still in love with airbags?

Because even if they are overrated, they can still save lives if the person is wearing a safety belt. So if the regulators will force people to wear seatbelts than they will also think any other option to save lives is worth exploring.

First is that some people refuse to buckle up. Mandating ignition interlocks -- so vehicles won't start until belts are buckled -- is seen as a scandalous idea. Dangerous, expensive airbags are better?

Second is that airbags are seen as a triumph of regulation, and the intellectual left won't give an inch on regulation. Seat belts, and then shoulder harnesses, were the true triumph for regulation -- they've saved large numbers of lives in a cost-effective manner.

Third is that government programs never end. A generation ago there was a huge lobbying fight regarding airbags, resulting in new government programs and a new constituency of bag manufacturers. At this point airbags may have outlived their usefulness, if not actually become a hazard.

Also, now that air bags have been placed in most cars, if manufacturers take them out of the car then there is a perception that the car has just been made less safe. This would obviously affect sales.

Crimson star Andrew Fischer compiled 193 of his team's 404 yards from scrimmage. So maybe, just maybe, the play will be to Fischer. Yale had him single-covered going deep, no safety help. To make matters worse, Bulldogs corner Dale Harris was looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than simply covering his man. 

Since Gregg often lies about whether a corner is looking in the backfield, I'm guessing Dale Harris really wasn't doing this.

TMQ contends that donations to university and college athletic departments should not be tax-deductible, since unlike education, athletics makes no larger contribution to society. No one likes taxes. But when the rich get deductions for donations, average people must be taxed or government debt must rise. Harvard has $36.4 billion endowment, more than double the GDP of Iceland. Why should athletic donations to Harvard, or to any university or college, be supported by average taxpayers?

The tax law which states donations to university and college athletic departments are tax-deductible isn't really in place for Harvard or other schools with huge endowments. It's intended to encourage contributions to smaller or medium sized athletic programs that need and can use the funds. The IRS just can't say, "All contributions to university and college athletic departments are tax-deductible, except for you Harvard. You have too much money already. Any contributions to your athletic department is not tax-deductible."

Last week Kansas City rose to second place, and immediately lost to winless Oakland. But since the Authentic Games Index doesn't recognize the Long Johns, this defeat does not alter the Chiefs' standing.

And yes, Gregg's Authentic Games metric is so useful it doesn't include his AFC Super Bowl participant from last week (and this week) losing to a previously winless team. Why would a loss to the worst team in the NFL hurt the Kansas City Chiefs in the Authentic Games metric? How could losing to the worst team in the NFL have ANYTHING to do with predicting that team's success in the postseason?

Gregg's Super Bowl matchup this week is Arizona versus Denver. Of course, Kansas City has one less loss to authentic teams than the Broncos have, but they lose out because they haven't played as many authentic teams as the Broncos.

My Non-Authentic Games metric has predicted the following Super Bowl matchups so far:

Packers and Broncos
Saints and Dolphins
Packers and Patriots

This week's Non-Authentic Games metric based entirely on which teams in the AFC and NFC won by the largest margin shows the Super Bowl matchup will be the Philadelphia Eagles and Buffalo Bills. So get ready for the matchup in the Super Bowl. Orton versus Sanchez.

Arizona clock management at the end of the first half at Seattle was perplexing. Trailing 9-0, the Cardinals reached third-and-goal on the Seattle 5 with 55 seconds remaining, holding a timeout. Bruce Arians watched as the clock ticked down to 19 seconds, then called the timeout. Huh? That meant Arizona was sure to attempt a pass into the end zone, as it did, incompletion -- the odd use of clock assured the Bluish Men Group they didn't have to defend a rush.

The Cardinals were holding a timeout, so why does this mean a pass attempt was assured? The Cardinals could easily have tried to run the football and then called timeout. Gregg is using hindsight to say that a pass was assured, but the Cardinals easily could have run the football from the five-yard line with one timeout. Sometimes I don't even understand what Gregg is thinking. He tends to just make up a reality to fit the criticism he wants to make.

The Blizzard of 1979 pretty much shut down Chicago for about two weeks and had lingering impacts for a month. Snow removal efforts were terrible despite lavish federal emergency aid; much of the CTA failed; the city's political machine was discredited, opening the door to Byrne. Three monster blizzards have hit Chicago in the postwar period, and all three been poorly handled. Yet Chicago is not widely viewed as a blizzard city.

Then there's Buffalo. The hard-to-believe seven-foot snowfall in parts of the Buffalo area (most totals are much lower, "lake effect" snow can vary significantly over short distances) is perhaps best appreciated in this photo, unless you prefer the drone perspective. Most Buffalo area public schools reopened today, one week after the blizzard. Chicago needed two weeks for basic recovery (schools open, plowing of side streets) from less than two feet of snow, Buffalo recovered faster from more than double the snowfall. Having lived in both Buffalo and Chicago, I can attest that Buffalo handles snow better, and endures less disruption of daily life from snow, than Chicago.

Yet Buffalo is viewed as a blizzard capital while Chicago is viewed as merely windy.

Chicago is viewed as merely windy probably because they don't get as many snowstorms during a given year as Buffalo. So Chicago doesn't handle snow as well because it seems the city infrastructure isn't as well-equipped to handle large amounts of snow as the city infrastructure in Buffalo is equipped to handle large amounts of snow.

If snowstorms ruin your day, you'd be better off in Buffalo than in Chicago -- since in Buffalo, snow rapidly is plowed and shoveled.

Yes, it's better to be in a snowstorm while located in a city that is used to handling snowstorms. Thanks for the information Gregg. I wouldn't have been able to figure this out without your help.

The Football Gods Will Smile Upon Him: On the final first half snap of Cleveland versus Atlanta, the Browns attempted a 60-yard field goal. Devin Hester was back to return a missed long field goal, which happened; got most of the way down the field and had only the holder to beat for a touchdown with time expired; Browns offensive lineman Joel Bitonio, who weighs 305 pounds, hustled like crazy to catch Hester from behind.

I think Gregg means "highly-paid glory boy and second round pick" Joel Bitonio hustled to catch Hester. Because Bitonio was drafted in the second round, Gregg won't be mentioning his draft position because it might ruin the narrative that highly-drafted players don't hustle like undrafted and lowly drafted players do.

Last week, TMQ complained of timid play calling by Buffalo coach Doug Marrone on fourth-and-short. In the second quarter, Bills facing fourth-and-short on the Jersey/B 45, Marrone went for it, and the try failed. The failed fourth-and-short was Buffalo's biggest down of the game! This column contends that sometimes it's better to try and fail -- this communicates to players that their coach is challenging them to win -- than to launch a timid punt. After the failed fourth-and-short, the Bills outscored the Jets 31-0.

It's better to try and fail because this communicates to players that the coach is challenging his team to win...except in situations like last week when Gregg criticized the Saints for not "doing a little dance" to convert the fourth down. It turns out that going for it on fourth-and-short challenges a coach's team to win only in cases where that team ended up winning the game. Funny how that works isn't it?

Manly Man Plays of the Week: Game tied 7-7, Santa Clara, hosting the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons, faced fourth-and-2 at midfield with 11 seconds remaining, holding a time out. The "safe" thing to do is to punt. Harbaugh/West  called for a deep pass, complete, Niners field goal on the final snap of the half.

Yeah, but WHO CAUGHT THIS PASS, GREGG? WHO? SAY HIS NAME!

From the ESPN game play-by-play of this game:

(:11) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass deep right to M.Crabtree pushed ob at WAS 23 for 25 yards (B.Breeland). 0-yds YAC

Michael Crabtree, he of the "Crabtree Curse" and a highly-drafted glory boy who only cares about himself, is the guy who caught this pass. Isn't it interesting how Gregg leaves this little tidbit out of his analysis of this play? It's like Gregg has an agenda he pushes in TMQ. This agenda is mainly to make up some shitty theory in order to explain why a team isn't playing well (instead of actual analysis because Gregg isn't capable of doing this) and then cover up how wrong he was when his theory is proven to be incorrect. It's all about Gregg's ego. He CAN NOT be seen as wrong nor can he allow his readers to see through his bullshit.

Colin Kaepernick and Robert Griffin III, both once viewed as unstoppable,

They've never been viewed as unstoppable. Gregg is exaggerating.

Doomsday movies play in suburban shopping malls to amuse soccer moms; 

That's a little sexist I think. Gregg probably thinks these soccer moms catch the doomsday movies in the afternoon so they can be home in time to cook dinner and make more babies.

Doomsday and computer-generated special effects obviously fit together nicely, while dystopias create the sort of simplistic good-versus-evil contrasts beloved by scriptwriters. If a future society is run by cackling villains, that's a lot easier to write than a future run by the conscientious.

Considering these movies and books are written to be entertaining, it's also a lot more entertaining to have an actual antagonist in a story rather than a story about nice people running the future with no conflict and drama.

The Football Gods Chortled: Three days after being on the cover of Sports Illustrated, breakout Patriots star Jonas Gray was benched, active for the Detroit game but never sent in.

Again, Gregg misleads his readers. I believe he means "unwanted and undrafted" Jonas Gray. Also, Gray isn't a star because he played well in one game. Geez. Cut back on the exaggerations.

Raiders Mathematically Alive to Finish 6-10: Kansas City had just defeated the defending champion Seahawks and was looking past the 0-10 Raiders to this Sunday's confrontation with Denver.

Gregg's ability to read minds comes through again.

Miami leading 21-17 at Denver facing third-and-10 at the Broncos 12, Ryan Tannehill dropped to pass.

Well, if Tannehill dropped to pass then he's playing the quarterback position all wrong. It's hard to throw the football from the ground.

Yes, I make grammar mistakes all the time, but is it too much to expect more from a columnist who has an editor and writes for the biggest sports site on the Internet? I don't think so.

He was hit as he threw; the ball bounced off an offensive lineman

Well obviously. He dropped to throw the pass. There's no way he could get the pass over the offensive lineman while on the ground.

Next Week: Tuesday Morning Quarterback gets a chief of staff.

Maybe this chief of staff will convince Gregg to quit misleading his readers by leaving out facts that only serve to protect Gregg's ego and attempt to give Gregg's assertions some authority in the minds of readers through deception. I doubt it. Gregg would probably just hire a chief of staff to gather more information about how unrealistic science-fiction movies and television shows are.

I said I would have to be thankful for something in this column in an attempt to be somewhat positive. Here it is. I'm thankful this column is over...and I'm thankful you guys read the crap I write about the crap Gregg writes.