3 comments Jay Mariotti Certainly Isn't Going to Allow Bill Simmons to Leave ESPN Without Taking the Opportunity to Take a Crap All Over Him

The "new" Jay Mariotti certainly acts exactly like the "old" Jay Mariotti acted. I figured he wouldn't allow Bill Simmons to leave ESPN without taking a shit on Simmons. It's just the way that Mariotti is. The professional courtesy of not taking a crap on someone who he used to work with is not something that Jay is interested in. It's not hard to see how I feel about Bill Simmons. Check out my vast archives (seriously, it's way too long...eight years of writing here certainly accumulates a lot of posts) to see how I feel about Bill. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but the enemy of enemy is certainly an asshole who is dumping on the enemy of my enemy for lacking the same journalistic skills that my enemy lacks. So Jay wants the fanboy phase of journalism to end. I'm not a big fan of fanboy journalism either, but I'm really, really not a fan of the bullshit antagonistic journalism that Jay Mariotti does. How about both forms of writing are done away with?

The Internet has perpetrated too much disarray in the world, giving semi-lives to people with no lives and adding too many reckless, unqualified voices to the daily churn.

Says the guy who does Internet writing and just left a job (got fired? failed miserably?) where all he did was write on the Internet. OF COURSE now that Jay is no longer writing solely on the Internet where he had no print presence he takes a shit on those who solely write on the Internet. Jay hates what he can't do or has been rejected from.

Also, who the fuck is Jay Mariotti to decide which voices are reckless and unqualified? Is he suggesting that sports sites do background checks on the people they hire, just to make sure they haven't pleaded "no contest" to a crime? Probably a good idea. Wouldn't want reckless people like that around the news room.

(I'll go ahead and put the "a lot of cursing" tag on this post)

A new century gave rise to sports websites that had to compete against legitimate journalists who actually broke news responsibly,

When the hell has Jay Mariotti ever broken news? He may have done this two decades ago, but he's a talentless asshole who simply writes reactionary pieces at this point in his career. The only news Jay Mariotti breaks is news like "This is my introductory column for a new site and here is why my old site sucks and everyone at it are assholes who don't understand real journalism and how many chances am I going to get to prove I don't suck?"

interviewed subjects, understood libel/slander law and carried the profession with savvy. 

I agree. The "Examiner" never should have hired you. This, we can agree upon. You have no savvy. You have no talent and the opinion you have of yourself is held by exactly 0 other people.

So, to have any chance, many of these new sites went low-brow and hired fans with no training in anything but how to wear a personally customized jersey to an arena, drink three beers and cheer maniacally for one’s team. 

The idea that Jay Mariotti accuses any site of going "low-brow" in hiring writers is just hilarious. The only places that have hired him are places who are so desperate for pageviews that they make a deal with him, but eventually regret it. Going low-brow should simply be called "Hiring Jay Mariotti" just like "Jumping the Shark" is synonymous with a show no longer being any good. AOL, Sports Talk Florida and now the "Examiner" have hired Jay Mariotti and two of the three seemed to regret the decision. Lacking pageviews? Need your site's name in the news? Hire Jay Mariotti. You will hate yourself in the morning though.

ESPN.com, then a digital embryo in a growing corporate empire, lured the eyeballs of sports fans by hiring one. Simmons had some talent, spoke the fan language and understood the fan perspective, so the hire was a good one … as a blogging niche. 

And when Jay is able to differentiate between the bullshit he writes about teams, which he calls journalism simply because he has some access, and a blogger like Simmons (who supposedly never really wanted access though he eventually got some) then he should just inform everyone. An article about how Michael Phelps is a loser for smoking pot or any of the other opinion-only pieces that Jay has written are basically just him blogging with a corporation behind him. His Sports Talk Florida site was as much of a blog as anything Bill Simmons wrote for ESPN.

So when Jay figures out why he is able to be so high and mighty about a blogging niche, I'd love to know, because I'm really confused.

Sports fanboys began to read the fanboy sportswriter. Traffic grew. Advertisers bought in. Simmons wrote two masturbatory books, both best-sellers.

While true, there is a lot of jealously in Jay's words. Remember the time Jay left the "Chicago Sun-Times" because writing on the Internet is where the future of journalism was? Seven years and two failed writing ventures later and Jay is back with print media, his lack of humility is still intact, while his sense of irony is still desperately broken beyond repair.

Bill's books are masturbatory (maybe THAT is why Bill got so many letters from readers discussing masturbation?), but they were both best-sellers and Bill has consistently sold books and managed to advance his own little empire. Bill Simmons is who Jay Mariotti wants to be.

Jay wanted to write on the Internet with AOL. He failed.

Jay wanted to write AND have his face on ESPN so he can be taken seriously. He failed. 

Jay wanted a multimedia empire with Sports Talk Florida. He failed.

Bill Simmons had/has the site that Jay desperately wanted to build. Jay wanted to be the editor-in-chief and get the validation as a real writer and editor that he so desperately craves. That was his goal with the Sports Talk Florida site. Bill did it without the training Jay thought he should have and he did it while making a ton of money in the process. This is Jay's jealousy talking. Jay, are you a little jel?

Suddenly, it didn’t matter if he never broke news and never quoted anyone but himself and his cousin. 

What's the deal with Jay and his need for quotes? Any person hired as a beat writer or a press pass can get quotes. This doesn't mean this person is a respected journalist.

ESPN created the original fanboy sportswriter, spawning a generation of fanboy sportswriters who also don’t know how to break news responsibly, interview subjects and cover sports properly. 

Again, when Jay Mariotti starts breaking news then I would like to be present for this. I can't recall a single story that Jay has ever broken, unless he wants to count the news that he is a coward and will hide when confronted by an MLB manager as breaking news, but that's just something most people expected of Jay anyway. It wasn't exactly news.

Friday, ESPN uncreated Simmons, choosing not to renew his contract.

At long last, an embarrassing business might have a chance again. 

Bill Simmons is responsible for a lot of things I don't like about sports journalism, but he isn't the person keeping the business of sports journalism in the doldrums. If anyone contributed significantly to this then it was Jay Mariotti with his hateful, reactionary screeds posing as columns and refusal to treat co-workers, athletes or the public's sense of decency with any sense of respect.

The network has only itself to blame, enabling Simmons and turning him loose to the point he was uncontrollable.

I don't know, it seems like Simmons was controlled fairly well by ESPN through the various suspensions and reprimands they imposed on him. He's an opinionated guy who makes an easy target for some within his own organization.

There is a difference between covering sports with fierce independence — my philosophy — and being a megalomaniacal jackass like Simmons, who never took a law class and, thus, didn’t understand why the company suspended him for referring to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as “a liar.”

Jay Mariotti keeps talking about how other writers "haven't ever taken a law class" like this is supposed to be a huge differentiating factor between him and others. Jay Mariotti may have had court-mandated counseling or taken a law class, but this doesn't make him Justice Scalia by any measure. If Jay HAD taken a law class and understood the law then he would understand Bill Simmons calling Goodell "a liar" probably wouldn't meet the level required by law as libel (as a statement made on a broadcast would qualify as being). Whatever though, Jay thinks because he took one law class that he's now qualified to write legal briefs and fancies himself a sort of journalistic Matlock.

Goodell may have lied about what he knew in the Ray Rice case, but Simmons did not have incontrovertible proof, which means the league could have sued the network for megamillions — and may have done so if ESPN wasn’t a broadcasting bedfellow.

If Jay Mariotti had taken more than one law class then he would know that the statement being made by Bill could be seen as an opinion and not a statement of fact (as Bill could easily claim his calling Goodell "a liar" was an opinion). The fact the comment is an opinion can be a defense to libel, and there is a higher threshold for a public figure to prove libel due to the public figure having to prove actual damages. There is a reason President Obama doesn't sue any member of Congress or random person who accuses him of lying and that's because it's a high threshold to meet and not worth his time. The same would go for Roger Goodell. I'm sure Jay knows this since he's taken a single law class and all.

I feel like I'm correct about this libel issue and if there are real attorneys out there who have taken more than one year of law school or a single law class and I am wrong, please do correct me. 

Simmons also was unequipped to be editor-in-chief of Grantland.com — 

I disagree entirely. I have my issues with Bill Simmons, but he's put a really good team around him at Grantland. I don't like every member of the team, but the site is informative even if it's not a huge financial success. Considering Bill had no past experience as an editor-in-chief, he's done a pretty good job at making Grantland what he wants it to be. His writing still sucks of course. Don't get me wrong.

Anyone else would have been fired after the Goodell and transgender mistakes. Simmons kept his job both times only because ESPN president John Skipper doesn’t acknowledge his own errors until he must.

At ESPN, other people who work there have said dumber things on air then to call Roger Goodell "a liar." The transgender thing was a big mistake and representative of Bill's lack of experience as editor-in-chief. That should not have happened. Still, I can't help but think Jay is jealous of Bill and that's why he's writing all of this.

Simmons destroyed the commissioner because he didn’t immediately announce a suspension in the Tom Brady deflated-balls scandal, and while it’s fair to wonder why Goodell is waiting, his weekend pause doesn’t warrant a nuclear explosion.

So Jay thinks Goodell deserved criticism, but not harsh criticism. Because Roger Goodell has dealt with so many issues over the past year in such a way that no harsh criticism of him should be allowed. I'm sure Jay is the guy who thinks he can do criticism without a nuclear explosion. Because Jay has proven he can criticize without his criticism taking on a life of it's own.

I’ve had my squabbles with corporate management. But my complaints were legitimate — 

Everyone thinks their squabbles are legitimate because everyone thinks they are right in these squabbles. No sane person has an issue with management and admits they are wrong the whole time. So yes, I'm sure Jay thinks his complains were legitimate.

a Chicago radio station demanded I sign a sheet of paper that I wouldn’t criticize the Bulls or White Sox, which would have painted me into an ethical corner had I agreed. When I refused, I was fired the day after Christmas. 

Haha! So replace "Chicago radio station" with "ESPN" and replace "criticize the Bulls or White Sox" with "Roger Goodell" and Jay was in the same situation that Bill Simmons was in. Of course he doesn't see it that way, because Jay's complaints are so legit.

My bosses at the Chicago Sun-Times had business ties with certain sports owners in town, and when they asked me to soften my opinions about those owners, I said no.

This is almost the exact same situation that Bill Simmons was in when he was asked by ESPN to soften his opinion on the NFL and Roger Goodell.

By calling him a liar, and then challenging the network to reprimand him after doing so, Simmons no longer was fighting a free-speech war. He was leaving himself vulnerable to a mountainous lawsuit. 

Oh man, but he was not. Again, I recognize Jay has taken a solitary law class, but Roger Goodell was not going to sue ESPN and Bill Simmons for his comments. He has enough PR issues without suing a popular writer for libel. It would be the equivalent of PR suicide to take a public, heavy-handed approach in reaction to what people were saying about him. It wasn't happening, despite Jay's vast legal knowledge saying it would.

Before he works again, the fanboy needs to take a law class or two. The Internet has enabled recklessness by idiot entrepreneurs — such as the assclown at Gawker Media — who think they can publish lies about anyone because it’s difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit against a web publication.

So Jay, with your vast law experience, has a public figure won a libel suit against Gawker media who has published lies? Has it happened?

The Bleacher Report entrepreneurs, too, are sports fans, making them fanboys much like … Bill Simmons. 

Well obviously Bill Simmons is responsible for the success of Bleacher Report and Deadspin. Naturally. Bill has influenced writers, but he's also responsible for some good writing that is being overlooked by Jay in his attempts to crap on every co-worker he's ever worked with. I should feel lucky that Jay isn't still taking a shit on Roger Ebert's grave.

One of America’s best sportswriters, Bob Kravitz, broke the Deflategate story in his new position at an Indianapolis TV station/website. After the Ted Wells report was issued, Kravitz wrote of unprofessionalism he encountered in the New England media the last few months: “The people who disappointed me most were the folks at The [Boston] Globe’s website, Boston.com. They are renowned pom-pom wearers, so it wasn’t a surrpise. But I was struck at the enthusiasm they displayed while carrying the Patriots’ water. It shocked me that a great newspaper like the Boston Globe would employ such rank amateurs and cheerleaders. Sad.” 

Where did Simmons grow up? Boston. 

From who did younger Boston.com sportswriters learn? Simmons.

Aaron Hernandez was just convicted of murder and may have committed more than one murder, all while playing for the New England Patriots. Tom Brady was revealed to have doctored footballs by deflating them while a member of the New England Patriots. Bill Belichick and the Patriot organization were shown to have been spying on opposing teams several years ago in order to gain an upperhand.

Where did Simmons grow up? Boston. (Except for when he moved to Connecticut of course) What is his favorite NFL team? The New England Patriots. This is not a coincidence either. Bill set up an atmosphere where Aaron Hernandez could commit murder and cheating was acceptable within the Patriots organization.

From whom did Brady, Belichick and Hernandez read glowing words about the organization and it's greatness which caused such hubris? In Bill Simmons' columns.

ESPN also killed sportswriting when it gave a major platform to a statistics geek, Nate Silver, failing to realize that sport is best covered via the exploration of human emotion, not the joyless crunching of numbers.

It's not like Jay is capable of crapping on just one person in a column. He loves to spread his jealously and anger at being rejected by ESPN on every employee within the organization. It's still hilarious to me that Jay holds himself up as this journalistic ideal that every other journalist must meet by getting quotes, taking one law class and exploring human emotion, as if knowing how to say these things means Jay is actually good at doing them.

In the process, the network chased off Rick Reilly, only the greatest sportswriter of his generation and someone who broke news responsibly, covered games and press conferences on site, interviewed subjects, understood libel law and carried the profession with savvy.

Jay is very, very, very concerned about sportswriters knowing libel law. And if making sure while ON-AIR he gets credit for something and plagiarizing his own columns counts as savvy, then Rick Reilly was full of it. Of course, he was also full of something else. 

Next, ESPN is trying an African-American site with an editor, Jason Whitlock, who isn’t liked by many African-American writers

As has been noted repeatedly by Deadspin, but I'm sure Jay would like to gloss over this little fact. 

I appreciated my eight years at ESPN; the TV show was fun, and when I was on, the ratings were much higher and the banter much livelier.

"EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN THE PAST WHEN I WAS AROUND! SINCE I'VE BEEN GONE NOTHING IS THE SAME!"

Of course everything was better when Jay Mariotti was around. I wouldn't expect him to believe anything different. Most people believe their time at an organization was the golden era of that organization simply because that's how their own ego tends to view things in a more self-centric way.

It’s a political loony bin where Skipper, like Goodell, can’t maintain consistency in issuing disciplinary punishments. Seems he finally got one right Friday. 

Watch out Jay! I know you know with your vast amount of law classes you have taken that you had better be careful calling Roger Goodell not consistent in his punishment. You wouldn't want to be fired in order to avoid a lawsuit.

And, no, I would not hire Bill Simmons at this news organization if he applied. Our standards are too high. 

I don't like Bill Simmons' writing, but if the "Examiner" was given the option of hiring Simmons, but dumping Mariotti, I think I know which direction they would go in. It's funny that Jay thinks the "Examiner's" standards are too high when his presence at the paper proves this statement as absolutely false. 

2 comments Jay Mariotti Writes Another Introductory Column for a Media Outlet Which Will Soon Get Tired of His Bullshit

As I detailed previously, Jay Mariotti has somehow managed to get another job writing. That means there is another introductory column that must be written. At this point, there is a template for what Jay will write in his introductory column (which, of course, won't stop me from covering this introductory column on this site):

1. He's not changed. He's still a rebel and will always do things his way.

2. He then proceeds to bash previous employers.

3. He tells the truth (from his own delusional point of view). That's all he's ever done.

4. He'll say there were too many corporate interests at his previous job and that's why he did the morally correct thing and beat a woman quit the job.

5. He's independent and proud of it. Mostly he's independent because nobody fucking likes him and therefore nobody wants to be around him.

6. He pled no contest to hitting a woman but he totally didn't do it. He only pled no contest because the criminal justice system is against rich, white men and his name would have been dragged through the mud. He didn't want his family to hear the bad things (all lies of course) that would be said about him, so he pled no contest for their sake. Apparently his family doesn't have the Internet, because there's very little positive said about Jay from former co-workers and anyone else who has ever met him.

7. He'll the tickle the taint of the local professional sports market in the hopes of gaining some converts before everyone hates him again.

Here is Jay's semi-annual introductory column for the "San Francisco Examiner." I can't wait to read his new introductory column after the "Examiner" tires of his constant antagonism and bullshit. And they will tire of him, because Jay Mariotti is the absolute fucking worst.

In the lobby of the Twitter building, which is near the Uber building and the Dolby building and a residential tower where $5,500 a month will get you 969 square feet and a parking spot, I visit a gourmet market that makes Saison look like Burger King. I examine a $75 bottle of 2007 Fiorita Brunello, check out a $67 jug of French lavender shampoo, consider a $130 slab of Jamon Iberico Pata Negra ("pure acorn fed Iberian pigs")

ALL OF WHICH JAY MARIOTTI CAN AFFORD! (Jay Mariotti continues swinging his dick around in the lobby of the Twitter building to the horror of bystanders)

and settle for a $6 ice cream cone. 

I'll just assume "$6 ice cream cone" is code for "a hand job from a hooker with herpes on her upper lip and two broken fingers."

Then I stroll outside, absorb the glory of a blue-skies-and-71 afternoon, head across Ninth Street ... and have to weave and shake like Steph Curry to avoid a fresh puddle of bubbly urine.

Jay mentioned a local hero. He's just like YOU! Love him, please. Adore him, he begs of you. He understands your local sports teams and his name-dropping of Steph Curry proves this.

And Jay Mariotti trying to avoid stepping in a puddle of urine is very metaphorical and would only be more metaphorical if Mariotti put the urine in a bottle, threw it on passing pedestrians and then found a way to make it seem like they were in the wrong for being angry at him as he cowered in one of the restrooms in the Uber building. 

That shower, truth be told, is among many reasons San Francisco is the best place to write in our thrive-or-die republic. It was left by a shouting homeless man whose pants are undone, one of thousands whose blighted survivalism is juxtaposed against the backdrop of the city's new rich. For a writer, this social clash is literary gold.

This is Jay's feeble attempt at "real" writing. As usual, it fails.

I said as much to my new editor-in-chief at the Examiner — "You should have someone just walking up and down Market Street every day" — and, for a moment, I thought I should be the man for that beat.

Jay just wants to roam the streets all day looking for another hand job from a hooker with herpes on her upper lip and two broken fingers. He can't fool me. 

But I am not here to cover gentrification and other ongoing dramas in the most complex and compelling of American cities.

Which is something that Jay has said similar about Chicago and Los Angeles. I'm not saying he beat that woman, but he does have a habit of journalistically saying "You know I love you baby, because you are such a special city" and then journalistically punching that city in the mouth on his way out of town.

After a career intermission that had more to do with catching my breath — roughly 7,000 columns and 1,700 ESPN TV appearances, hundreds of radio shows, 14 Olympic Games, 24 Super Bowls, travel to five continents —

Here comes the justifications again. Jay Mariotti wasn't really fired from ESPN for his legal troubles. His Sports Talk Florida site didn't fail miserably while other sports journalists that Jay compares himself to being on par with had their site succeed, it's just that he WANTED to take some time off. Jay is glad he got fired from ESPN, because he was completely looking to take some time off from his career anyway. If Jay has to beat the shit out of someone to get another career break, then it will be totally worth it to him. It's not that his promised multi-media platform at Sports Talk Florida failed, it's that they didn't support him the way he needed to be supported. Not to mention, Jay really wanted to take a break from his career. You know, even though he stated he had just taken a break from his career in his introductory column at Sports Talk Florida.

than a recklessly reported legal case,

Haha...okay, Jay. Keep blaming the media you work for. Keep blaming those who jump to conclusions just like you have jumped to conclusions during your entire career. You are always the victim. There isn't a cross big enough for you to martyr yourself upon, as you have been done so wrong by the legal system and the media.

Last time I had the potential for this much fun, Snoop Dogg was staring me down before an "Around The Horn" taping, saying, "Who do you think you is?"

Last time Jay had this much fun he was working for the company that he tried to work for again but they wouldn't take him back. But it's okay, because Jay is delusional and has convinced himself a break was good for him.

Who do I think I is?

I'm the Diddy by the Bay.

God, you are the fucking worst.

San Francisco has been the place for flower children, poets, gold-rushers, tech dreamers, drifters, politicos, and reinventists. Now, I dare say, this is the place for sportswriters. In Chicago, a previous stop of 17 years, I often bemoaned lousy owners and bad teams who were in bed with corrupt media, including two baseball franchises that have won one World Series over a collective 203 seasons.

The Chicago baseball franchises weren't successful enough to support a sportswriter of Jay's vast abilities. He can't have the failures of the Chicago baseball teams drag him down like the big mean American legal system dragged him down.

Here, the Warriors play the most exciting basketball on the planet, led by the incomparable Curry, whose swag and splash on the court are matched by his decorum and charity work off it (as His Barackness quickly figured out and glommed onto). Here, the formerly regal 49ers are in a chaotic and cursed freefall, thanks to a front office that (1) allowed internal politics and professional resentment to subvert Jim Harbaugh's ultra-successful reign; (2) chose a curious successor in tongue-tied, unproven Jim Tomsula; (3) absorbed a mass exodus of high-character leaders; and (4) watched helplessly as Chris Borland, my early leader for Sportsman of the Year, prioritized his long-term wellness over his prowess as a 24-year-old linebacker.

Oh, Jay has a vote for Sportsman of the Year? Wait, no he doesn't have a vote. So whoever the fuck is his "early leader" for this award doesn't matter one damn bit because he doesn't get a vote. It's like if I stated who my early leader for an Academy Award was. No one gives a shit because I don't get a vote.

Here, you have David Shaw, the coach the 49ers should have hired, mixing football prominence with Stanford's cooler-than-Harvard academic boom.

The 49ers should have hired David Shaw, regardless of whether he wanted to be hired by the 49ers or not. David Shaw is Jay's early leader for Time Man of the Year, so it would have been smart for the 49ers to hire him.

And what is coming next winter? Did you say the Super Bowl? Imagine life as the first city to win a World Series, win an NBA Finals and host a Super Bowl in a 15-month period.

Imagine the Raiders building a new stadium and Jay Mariotti being buried beneath it. In 15 months, that will be the real dream for citizens of the San Francisco area.

Amid those possibilities, I arrive as the sports director and lead columnist at the Examiner, which makes me a management guy for the first time and probably sparks visions of Bart Simpson being handed keys to the corporate bathroom.

A Bart Simpson reference from Jay Mariotti. It's always 1998 in the delusional, ego-driven world that Jay Mariotti lives in.

Someone suggested I print Zuckerberg-like business cards — "I'm Sports Director, Bitch" — but a wiser idea is putting together smart, gritty, daily sports coverage

It looks like auto-correct changed "shitty, daily sports coverage" to "gritty, daily sports coverage." I think the "Examiner" readers will understand what Jay really meant after they read his columns.

My mission statement as a columnist, and as an editor by extension, is fierce independence.

Jay's message as an editor, columnist and part of the "Examiner" team is "Fuck you, he isn't a part of a team, because he's better than you (starts listing how many Super Bowls he's covered while leaving out how many bridges he's burned)."

We will be big on topicality, immediacy, and perspective. On my watch, we will not drive traffic with trash,

The only conclusion I can draw from Mariotti insisting the "Examiner" won't drive traffic with trash is that Jay Mariotti plans on firing himself. What's really funny is the "Examiner" hired Mariotti AS the trash that drives traffic. As usual, Mariotti isn't self-aware enough to realize traffic won't be driven with trash columns because he is the trash that drives traffic.

I'll repeat what I've placed on my personal site — jaymariotti.com — for some time:

The legal system is really mean and biased against white men, so you would rather plead guilty and be known as the guy who admitted to hitting a woman rather than spend all the money you most certainly have to fight the charges that you so strongly insist were false?

Translation: No one is telling me what to write or say.

Except for the voices in Jay's head that have convinced him he is a good person and his writing isn't the crap that drives traffic to sites. These voices are most certainly telling Jay what to write or say. It's either listen to them or face the reality that nobody fucking likes him and he only gets hired when a media outlet is so desperate for pageviews they have to dig to (ahem) the bottom of the sportswriting barrel.

It wasn't that way at ESPN — where the North Carolina academic-fraud scandal hasn't been attacked with nearly the energy of other sports investigations, perhaps because the company president is a Tar Heel. We were told to reserve comments on our TV show when the network was cutting a massive college football deal or doing urgent soccer business. In Chicago radio, I was ordered to sign a form promising I wouldn't criticize the White Sox and Bulls — the station was trying to do a rights-fee deal with the teams' insufferable owner, Jerry Reinsdorf — and when I refused, I was fired the day after Christmas.

Notice how Jay always paints himself as the guy standing up for the morally correct thing. Jay didn't plead no contest to hitting a woman, he plead no contest only because the court system is so corrupt and pleading this way was the only way to save his reputation by ruining it. Jay wasn't fired from this ESPN job due to bad performance or the fact nobody fucking likes him, but he was fired because he refused to have his strict moral compass pointing away from the journalistic integrity that he believes he stands for. There's always a reason why Jay has failed and it's always because he was doing the right thing when the world is inevitably conspiring against him.

At the Chicago Sun-Times, I was told to avoid certain Reinsdorf-related topics and rip the Cubs at will (they were owned then by the rival Tribune) when I wasn't being threatened in press boxes by wacko colleagues, forearm-shivered against a wall by an editor-in-chief, navigating through a cesspool where the paper's top two executives wound up in jail or dealing with a national firestorm after the White Sox manager, twice-since-fired Ozzie Guillen, called me a "(bleeping) fag."

Interesting that Mariotti won't write "fucking" but has no issue with writing "fag." I don't know, it seems like both are words that probably wouldn't need to be printed.

He did so while criticizing me for not going to his clubhouse, conveniently disregarding that too many visits had become setups in which someone would try to start an incident with me, creating news I did not wish to make.

The news that Jay wished to make at the time was threaten Ozzie Guillen in print and then stay tucked away safely in his office. But of course Jay was the one being threatened and his cowardice to back up his words with actions was only him taking the high road. Jay doesn't want to get in a fight with a man, he only fights women, and so he was just taking the high road by cowering behind the words written in his column.

No intimidation tactic stopped me from writing what the hell I wanted, until I realized in 2008 that a dysfunctional paper had no real future,

Actually, you indicated at the time that all newspapers don't have a future. Let's not revise history to cover up for the fact that you are, again, working at a newspaper in an industry that you once so confidently stated had no future. Upon leaving the "Sun-Times" you indicated newspapers were dying and that's why you were leaving. Yet, here you are seven years later suckling back at the newspaper teat until they get rid of your ass and you decide newspapers are dying again.

prompting me to hand back a million bucks in guaranteed money and resign peacefully. 

A million dollars? I've never seen a million dollars before. Boy, that sure is a lot of money for Jay to give back and must mean he was in the right! No one would give up that amount of money unless he/she had a really good reason!

Not dealing with it well, the paper had Roger Ebert, the legendary film critic, call me "a rat" in an open letter.

Let's revisit that letter, which puts in writing what many of Jay's co-workers and former co-workers think about him.

And notice in the introduction it's made perfectly clear that Jay said newspapers were dead, not that the "Sun-Times" specifically was dead. It's amazing to me how Jay can just ignore things that don't conveniently match his assertions. He's really a horrible person. It's why I don't believe he didn't hit that woman and I pretty much believe nothing he writes. He's a liar and bad person. Too many people have testified to this fact over the years.

And yes, I will always side with Roger Ebert on matters that involve Jay Mariotti.

I weighed offers and signed a deal as national columnist at America Online, one of those web initiatives that talked big, threw money at dozens of writers, then cut bait — as it struck a content deal with Arianna Huffington.

And again, as is the trend, Jay didn't do anything wrong and he was done wrong in some fashion. It's not that he failed at AOL or the job he was doing wasn't enough to financially satisfy AOL, it's that they cut a content deal with Arianna Huffington. Because most companies will ruin a successful business venture just for the sake of cutting a deal. Jay did nothing wrong and his performance was exemplary as always. Most writers of Jay's self-believed stature would be highly sought after, but Jay wasn't. One would think that the writing industry would know he got a raw deal at the "Sun-Times" and AOL, then sign him up to write for them. After all, it wasn't Jay's fault things didn't work out at those two media outlets, so the offers should come rolling in, right? Well, no...

I wrote a book, then tried a national writing-and-radio content site only to realize such "boutique" destinations need constant investment infusions from entrepreneurs.

They need constant investment infusions from entrepreneurs because Jay's radio show and columns weren't bringing in enough money. That's why Sports Talk Florida failed, because Jay has quickly become relevant only when it comes to hating him. Otherwise, he's not taken seriously and no one fucking likes him.

So Jay really didn't think that Sports Talk Florida would take constant infusions of money to become as big as Grantland? Really? He is that stupid as to think Grantland would succeed if ESPN money and the writing staff assembled for Grantland wasn't part of the project? Jay's ego is so big he thought he could build a Grantland-type site all by himself? It turns out that Jay is as smart of a businessman as he is a liar when it comes to explaining his past failures and actions.

The internet has enabled too much irresponsibility and ignorance. A business that is wilder and younger still must have professional standards, or it becomes an Alfred E. Neuman self-parody that no one takes seriously and has the believability of a seventh-grade bathroom wall.

I'm choking on irony here. It's like hearing Westboro Baptist preach about love and acceptance of others, no matter the differences we all have. Jay Mariotti's writing is a self-parody that nobody takes seriously and displays so much ignorance. Check the archives on this site for proof. He's good to hate and for pageviews, but even after a while those pageviews decrease because Jay has nothing to offer in terms of sportswriting abilities.

To recap, I was accused of domestic violence offenses I did not commit by a plaintiff who tried, without success, to win a financial reward in a civil suit. Not only did that suit fail quickly, the original case was dismissed and expunged ("Not guilty," read the court documents), which means there was no conviction. Expungements, as The New York Times recently noted, are issued rarely and with considerable diligence.

And yet, Jay pled no contest. The original case was dismissed and expunged, but he still pled no contest.

I've maintained my innocence from the start, never acknowledged guilt, and only pleaded no contest four years ago because coverage of the case was absurdly one-sided against me and littered with false allegations published as facts.

Who will stand up for the rich, white males of society?

Pleading no contest allowed me to save the half-million dollars (or more) in additional legal fees required in a Los Angeles court proceeding so I could keep my youngest daughter in college, important when ESPN played judge and jury from 3,000 miles away and removed me from its TV show without contacting me or my attorney.

Boy, the million dollars in guarantees Jay gave up from the "Sun-Times" really would have come in handy right about this point wouldn't it? I guess this is the price Jay pays for having such a strict moral compass.

Know this: Just because someone is accused doesn't mean he is guilty, and just because one pleads no contest doesn't mean he is acknowledging guilt. I did not hit anyone. I did not stalk anyone. I do not hit or stalk people.

Right, pleading no contest isn't acknowledging guilt, it's just acknowledging that you probably can't win the case. And of course, it's not because the evidence was against Jay that he couldn't win the case, but because the judicial system is conspiring against him that he couldn't win the case. He's ever the martyr.

No one abhors domestic violence more than I, as the father of two amazing grown daughters who never were exposed to it, and no one was more disgusted by the Ray Rice video last year — not only the sheer hideousness but the chilling reality that every public figure accused of this crime, whether that person is guilty or not, is bound to be associated with Rice.

Typical Jay Mariotti. Jay doesn't give a shit about Janay Rice, instead he's disgusted by the fact the video of Ray Rice striking his fiance (now wife) will make people recall he pled no contest to domestic violence and ponder hypothetically what happened in that situation which resulted in a no contest plea. Jay Mariotti only gives a shit about Jay Mariotti. The Ray Rice case was about him and Janay Rice getting hit was only relevant in how it reflected on Jay Mariotti.

Since the announcement of my appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen.

Jay, you are reaping what you have sown. If you treat people like shit, then people are going to treat you like shit. No one in the media gives a shit about your expungement because nobody fucking likes you. This is all the bad shit you have done in your life coming right back at you. You can keep taking a piss on others while are at a job and after you have left that job, but at some point it's someone else's turn to take a piss on you. Hope you enjoyed it. You reap what you sow, you get treated as you treat others. If you want others to treat you fairly, try treating others fairly.

But the good news is this gives Jay another chance to play the martyr. It's not his fault he's treated his colleagues like shit through the years. Why won't the big, bad media do their job and correct the misconception? Why? Because nobody fucking likes him.

I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.

Since Jay is an editor now, he can force the "Examiner" staff to take law classes. Then he can not attend those classes himself because he's fiercely independent.

We will cover media, including ESPN, when necessary for our readers. We will be fair, but we won't tolerate amateurs and arrogance — such as, ESPN's sneaky habit of taking credit for stories first broken by other outlets. I cast a critical eye at the media behemoth long before I worked there,

Oh yes, Jay was working and collecting a paycheck for ESPN, but he ALWAYS HAD HIS EYE ON THEM! Thank God that Jay Mariotti is around to collect a huge paycheck from ESPN and make sure the company stays on their toes. He's the undercover ombudsman ESPN didn't even know it had.

wasn't allowed to when I did work there for eight years, and will continue to do so now, understanding the network's powerful, all-encompassing place in sports and how it impacts fans.

But let's be factual and out of fantasy land for a second. This "behemoth" that Jay talks about, he was in talks to work there again and doesn't mind doing freelance writing for ESPN. If ESPN called tomorrow and offered him a job then he would leave the "Examiner" in a heartbeat to work for ESPN. As I have shown previously, Jay will always bash previous employers or companies that won't hire him. Then he forgets he bashed these companies once they choose to hire him. Jay was casting a critical eye as the undercover ombudsman and was only trying to write freelance for ESPN (I guess that's what it was, he only wrote one column) just to get closer to the behemoth he didn't trust.

It has been fun getting away from this psycho media swirl and discovering new peeps in California

You should be dragged behind a team of wild horses for writing "discovering new peeps."

The Chronicle reporter asked me if I understood the "political atmosphere in San Francisco." All I know about the atmosphere is that the Warriors have an easier path to the NBA Finals by avoiding Kevin Durant in the first round, the Giants already are down Hunter Pence in a dreaded odd-numbered year, and the 49ers are looking dumb and doomed.

Oh man, Jay is REALLY going to bash the 49ers. Pretty soon Jay will be hiding behind his desk as Jim Tomsula threatens his physical well-being.

Recently, I spoke to a media class at Northwestern University. Most questions were about how to find a job in today's tight market.

Be sure everyone hates you, ensure your writing serves as a temporary fix for what ails the paper, then take a huge shit on all your co-workers as you walk out the door for what you will insist is a better job.

I told the students to practice their writing, video, and audio crafts every day, on their own websites and blogs, and that if they can withstand rejection and pain, the business remains very satisfying and worthwhile. I said I've had good reasons to try other life options, but that I'd decided to accept a terrific job in a spectacular city after a few challenging moments.

Oh, a terrific newspaper job! A job with the newspaper industry that Jay described as dying a short seven years ago. Weird how that works.

Sometimes, you just have to step around some pee to appreciate the $6 ice cream cone.

And sometimes you have to hire a guy who will pee on you and your paper's reputation in order to get short-term pageviews. Welcome back Jay! Now go away.

3 comments Despite His Having Four Super Bowl Rings, Dan Shaughnessy Still Thinks He's Smarter Than Bill Belichick

Dan Shaughnessy uses the phrase "The Patriot Way" in this column. I am betting he does this just to annoy people like me. Dan doesn't like that the Patriots refused to pick up the option for Darrelle Revis and then weren't able to sign him in free agency. He makes this clear through snark and discussing how the "system" is more important than the players, as if this strategy hasn't worked for the Patriots in the past. So despite the Patriots having just won a Super Bowl, Dan spends some time being snarky and suggesting he knows what is better for the Patriots then the incompetent Bill Belichick does. After all, it's been a whole couple of months and the Patriots still haven't won another Super Bowl. Dan thinks the Patriots may never win another Super Bowl now that they have allowed Revis to go to the Jets in free agency. Someone should do something about how Bill Belichick is wrecking the Patriots team.

The Patriots just lost their best defensive player. 

No, they re-signed Devin McCourty and Chandler Jones is still on the roster. Jerod Mayo is also coming back from injury, so it seems the Patriots still have quite a few guys who can be considered their best defensive player.

Greedy Darrelle is going to New York for a five-year, $70 million contract. He’s going to make $48 million over the first three years of his Jet contract. He’s now got $39 million in guaranteed money coming his way.

Yes, of course Darrelle Revis is greedy for maximizing his market value. We all know Dan Shaughnessy would NEVER take an opportunity to earn more income and maximize his value. Never. Ever. So fuck Darrelle Revis for trying to make as much money as possible during his career. This makes him greedy and not a good businessman.

The clever Patriots would not go for that. They reportedly stopped short at a guarantee of $35 million.

So, if the reports are true, this New England team, flush with cash, lost its best defensive player for $4 million.

The Patriots had around $14 million in cap space around the time that Revis was signed by the Jets. I'm not sure that would count as being flush with cap space. They couldn't afford to sign Revis to the contract that the Jets signed him to. Revis is earning $16 million during the 2015 season. It seemed pretty well-known, at least to me, that the Patriots couldn't keep both McCourty and Revis. Of course, when has Dan allowed reality to seep into his criticisms?

Naturally, you are all OK with this. You are Patriots fans. Your team just won a Super Bowl. You subscribe to a long-standing policy that your team will not pay stupid money for talent. Sure, the Patriots have the money, but that’s not the point.

No, it is the point. The point is that just because the Patriots have the money it doesn't mean they should spend that money.

The point is that players don’t matter. It is the system that matters. The system wins Super Bowls. The coach wins Super Bowls. The owner wins Super Bowls.

The quarterback wins Super Bowls too. At some point when this has been proven incorrect, then I would love for Dan Shaughnessy to point out when. The Patriots have shown they don't have to keep players who have hit free agency as long as they are able to find other players to serve as replacements. Dan is snarky about the system, but it works, so his snark is simply a sarcastic statement of fact.

Your team doesn’t do the foolish things that other teams do. And your team just won the Super Bowl. So who is going to question the Patriot way? Only a fool.

Or someone (namely, a sportswriter named "Dan Shaughnessy") who questions every move Boston-area teams make that don't match the conventional wisdom of what a team should do. Then when he is proven to be incorrect about his questioning of these moves, he simply moves on to the next issue he can gripe about sarcastically.

Clearly, the Jets are idiots. Again.

Maybe. Was the Jets' issue last year at the cornerback position? Partly, but that's a lot of money for a cornerback who the Jets already refused to pay just a few years ago. They may not be idiots, but it's a big investment in one player.

The Patriots rented Revis for one year and they got what they wanted. They won a Super Bowl. So line up and guzzle the Patriots Kool-Aid.

This is Dan's defense mechanism. He gets snarky and says something like, "Well, it worked for the Red Sox didn't it? So every move they make from now on will work, won't it?" in a desperate effort to lower the bar and move the goal posts, while distracting the reader from the fact Dan's upcoming criticism has no validity. No one is guzzling the Patriots Kool-Aid. They won a Super Bowl with Revis. Their plan worked.

Never mind that the Patriots could keep on winning Super Bowls and keep their best defensive player.

Could they though? Really think about that, Dan. Think hard. I'm not sure the Patriots could have kept Revis and McCourty.

It’s more important that they win at the negotiating table. It’s all about the value.

While being sarcastic in an effort to make the Patriots seem as though they are cheap, Dan is missing the point. It is important to win at the negotiating table. Good teams keep an eye on their salary cap situation for this year and 2-3 years down the road. It IS all about value. Losing at the negotiating table is how teams end up with millions in dead money which restricts their ability to make offseason moves that improve the team.

Dan just doesn't understand. Maybe the Patriots are cheap, but it works. Maybe Dan would have a point if it weren't for two small issues:

1. The Patriots' strategy of being cheap has paid off for almost 15 years now. They have been the most successful NFL franchise since 2001 using this strategy.

2. It is all about value at the bargaining table in order to sustain the long-term success of a team.

It’s about the value because the Patriots are not only the best team on the field. They are the smartest. They are the most clever. They are playing chess while the other dimwits are playing checkers.

And now Dan is trying to overstate the case in order to enter the Theater of the Absurd since his opinion in the real world has been proven to sound stupid.

Pity those foolish Steelers and Giants and Ravens and Broncos. And Jets. They do not know how to do business. The Patriots know how to win and they know how to do business.

But it's true. The Patriots do know how to do business. The results on the field support this point of view. The Steelers, Giants, Ravens and Broncos aren't foolish. It's not a zero-sum game like Dan is desperately trying to prove is true. The Patriots aren't smarter than every other team in the same way McDonald's isn't smarter than Wal-Mart, Target or Burger King. They are all successful, it's just they each have a different way of doing business. Target isn't stupid because Wal-Mart is smart. The same theory applies here. The Patriots have a good way of doing business that is proven to be successful. It doesn't mean other NFL teams don't have a good way of doing business themselves.

Everybody in this NFL-crazed nation knew the Patriots were never going to pay Revis $20 million for 2015, with a salary-cap hit of $25 million. But not everybody knew the Jets were going to lose their minds. That’s why they are the Jets.

So the Patriots should have given Revis the money the Jets gave Revis and this would have made the Patriots smart, but because the Jets gave Revis this money then they are losing their minds? I don't even understand the logic behind this comment.

They just added a great cornerback to their woeful, non-contending team. And the smarter-than-everybody Patriots no doubt believe they have a valid tampering claim against New York. It’s all there on tape. We heard Jets owner Woody Johnson gushing about Revis in December. Not cool.

Dan's basic point seem to be that he is going to talk sarcastically about how smart the Patriots are compared to the Jets, while seeming to truly believe the Patriots are smarter than the Jets...or something like that. Maybe not. Maybe the Patriots would have been smart to re-sign Revis, all while the Jets were dumb for re-signing Revis.

So now it’s time to fire up the Patriots media cartel. Time to demonize Revis.

You mean by calling him "greedy"? Or was that Dan making fun of Patriots fans for calling Revis greedy while not actually calling Revis greedy, unless Dan suddenly decides he does think Revis is greedy, in which case Dan was completely serious in calling him "Greedy Revis"?

Has anybody noticed that Revis only had two interceptions last year? Clearly, this guy is overrated. Right? And now we know for sure that he cares only about money. If he really cared about winning football, he would have stayed here for less. But no. Ultimately, Revis showed his true colors. He chose money over legacy. What a loser.

Dan is changing tone here almost as much as I change tone. It's difficult to keep up with. Clearly, he is being sarcastic right now about Revis being a loser. Most NFL players care only about money, it's just Revis is in a position to actually make more money.

If I may stray from the party line for a moment, there might be some legitimate questions here. If the Patriots were willing to make Devin McCourty the highest-paid safety (five years, $47.5 million), in football, why did they draw the line on Revis, who is better at corner than McCourty is at safety?

Perhaps, and this is a point that Dan seems to consistently miss, the Patriots could really not afford to keep both of them. McCourty was cheaper, and while not as talented as Revis, he allowed the Patriots to do something defensively that couldn't be replaced with another safety that was on the market or in the draft. Revis may be a better corner than McCourty is a safety, but it may be easier for the Patriots to replace the production of Revis than it is to replace McCourty's production. There are outside forces which are present and can move a player's value to his current team up or down.

And how are they going to take the hit of also losing Brandon Browner in the defensive backfield?

They may commit fewer defensive holding or pass interference penalties.

Revis changed everything in 2014. In the six seasons after the undefeated season of 2007, the Patriots were good, but never great; not even when they got back to the Super Bowl in Indianapolis against the Giants. They were always good enough to win the AFC East (like signing up for AOL), but they were not good enough to keep good offenses off the field when it mattered.

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing up that the Patriots were good, but never great, when they went 72-24 over a six year span. The Patriots were 4-5 in the playoffs during that time and what happened again in the 7th year after the Patriots went undefeated? Oh yeah, they won the Super Bowl. I was always confused by whether the Patriots were good or great and always thought a 75% win rate in the regular season over six years was a pretty great record. It turns out that record is only good. I'm glad Dan Shaughnessy is here to point out the truths as his delusional mind sees them as it relates to a point he is looking to prove.

In 2014, Revis enabled the Patriots to play any kind of defense Belichick wanted. Revis routinely erased the best receiver on the other team. Calvin Johnson. A.J. Green, T.Y. Hilton. Revis got more Pro Bowl votes than any corner in the NFL. More votes than flavor-of-the-year Richard Sherman.

Richard Sherman is still a pretty good cornerback. I will not allow myself to be distracted by Dan Shaughnessy's shot at Richard Sherman based on such an idiotic metric as Pro Bowl votes.

We know the Patriots don’t like to work with a gun at their heads. They like value. They don’t spend to the cap and they don’t like to overpay. Just because somebody else is willing to pay stupid money, why should New England?

It really is a good strategy if an NFL team can continue winning games while using this strategy. Why should the Patriots overpay for a player simply because another team chooses to use this strategy in order to acquire or keep a player? Because acquiring big name players and spending money is exciting and keeps the local beat writers with fresh stories they can write during free agency?

Ordinarily, this thinking works with the Patriots and their fans. It’s “In Bill We Trust.’’ Fans support the team when Wes Welker leaves and when Logan Mankins is traded. Usually, this blind loyalty is rewarded.

Most always this blind loyalty has been rewarded. As long as fans don't hold the Patriots to the absurd standard of "Have they won the Super Bowl every single season?" then the blind loyalty has been rewarded with nearly a decade-and-a-half of sustained success. I can't see in what world there should be criticism of how the Patriots deal with personnel. Regardless of how strong the AFC East has been, the Patriots have won four Super Bowls since 2001 and their strategy on how they value players has proven to work. It's not easy to be as good as the Patriots have been for as long of time as they have been good. Of course, Dan has no perspective and just assumes because the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 more times in the last 14 years, then a different strategy in valuing their personnel would have changed that. He sees the Patriots' way of thinking as the problem surrounding why the Patriots aren't MORE successful, as opposed to viewing this thinking as the reason the Patriots have been this successful. Dan sucks.

It seemed that Revis was different. He was the best player at a crucial position. He delivered a Super Bowl.

You would have thought he was a guy the Patriots could not afford to lose.

When an NFL team says, "We afford to lose this guy" because of that player's perceived value, then that is how teams often end up overpaying for players it turns out they could have afforded to lose, even if they didn't want to lose that player.

But there is no such player. It’s not about any one player. It’s about the system.

Which is a system, that like it or not, has been proven to work for the Patriots.

The Patriots usually win, and sometimes lose, but at the bargaining table the Patriot Way is the only way.

There is no real "Patriot Way," but the Patriots do have a philosophy that seems to work. Dan Shaughnessy, of course, thinks that HIS way is better than the Patriots' way of doing business. After all, the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 times in the past 14 years. That's quite the record of failure. Just imagine how successful the Patriots could have been if they had utilized the Shaughnessy Way of dealing with personnel. They may have created a dynasty over the last decade-and-a-half. 

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.