Ahh, the last column of the semester. Yeah, I know. It's emotional for all of us.
Since it is the last column, we all know what that means: Super Bowl picks. Unfortunately, my picks are pretty boring. So, let's see if we can't spice it up with steroids and NFC-bashing!
First, I want to clear something up. A few weeks ago, I wrote about "Southie," referring to South Boston, home to Irish guys with really thick accents who are really smart but too afraid of life so they sit around until motivated by Ben Affleck. Unfortunately for me, the spell checker auto-changed Southie to South E, ruining my street cred. And, really, what's more important than street cred?
Okay, so here are my two cents about the steroid brewhaha in baseball. Everyone else is weighing in, so why shouldn't I?
I argue that every baseball statistic made before 1947 (before baseball was integrated) could, and maybe should, have an asterisk next to it. Indeed, the sport wasn't truly integrated for another decade. Sure, that's different than manipulating your body to perform better; and it wasn't Ruth's decision to only play against whites. But that's a moral difference. Records are records.
Who knows how many homeruns Josh Gibson could have hit? How many bases could "Cool Papa" Bell have stolen in a full career? How great a hitter would "Pop" Lloyd have been? Many, including Ruth, believed Lloyd was the best hitter of all-time. How many records would Satchel Paige have?
We'll never know if today's best pitcher award would have been called the "Smokey" Joe Williams instead of the Cy Young. When Williams was 44, he struck out 27 batters in a 12-inning game. Try to imagine how many records he should hold.
To me, the question now is how to view these asterisks. Cy Young pitched in the dead-ball era. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb never played in an integrated league. Hank Aaron never lifted weights or drank a protein shake. What do those things mean?
That's another point. Everyone's talking about steroid use, but what about weight lifting and dietary supplements, of which steroids are just an extension? Players are stronger and in better shape than ever before. They wear arm and leg armor protection and scientifically-crafted footwear. They have hours upon hours of footage and painstakingly assembled scouting reports. Is every modern record therefore tainted?
Also, I don't understand why people are waiting for Bonds to admit that he knew he was taking steroids. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the important thing that, knowingly or not, the guy that's going to break Hank Aaron's record definitely took steroids? The asterisk is there.
I think baseball should let previous records stand and impose random testing (what other choice do they have?). Overall, however, I'm not sure exactly what effect steroids, or any of these advantages for that matter, have; how good would Bonds be without steroids? Jason Giambi was better before taking them, and Kevin Brown gave us a wonderful demonstration of 'roid rage.
I'll bet that Ruth's numbers would have been similar even if the league had been integrated. But we'll never know. What I am sure of is that baseball is littered with asterisks already, even if they are not officially printed in the record books.
And now onto the steroid-free world of professional football. Because the NFC is so bad this season, one of the following teams might very well make the playoffs. And, in my opinion, if a team makes the playoffs, there must be something good to say about it. Let's test that theory.
Arizona Cardinals (4-8): Rookie QB John Navarre, fresh off a 168 yard, four-interception game, has nowhere to go but up. Watch out NFC, the Cardinals aren't getting any worse.
Washington Redskins (4-8): A team I called "an unmitigated disaster" just two weeks ago, the Redskins are still in the playoff hunt and probably aren't going to set a record for fewest points scored in a season.
New Orleans Saints (4-8): The Saints are one of the best football teams in the state of Louisiana.
Detroit Lions (5-7): Joey Harrington has completed over half of his passes, and kicker Jason Hanson has only missed 30 percent of his field goals.
Chicago Bears (5-7): They haven't been mathematically eliminated yet.
New York Giants (5-7): Ron Dayne was great in college.
Dallas Cowboys (Probably 5-7): This team would have been pretty good in 1998.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5-7): They won the Super Bowl in 2002.
Carolina Panthers (5-7): Saving the "best" for last. The Panthers are almost likely to play in a playoff game. I say "almost" because the Rams currently have a better record. Unfortunately for them, the Rams might be the worst 6-6 team of the last decade.
And finally, the Super Bowl picks.
Representing the AFC: The New England Patriots. No, the Steelers aren't good enough. They beat the Patriots when New England was without Corey Dillon and Ty Law, and they'll fold against a healthy Pats defense. The Jaguars physically dominated them on Sunday night. Just wait. You'll see. The Steelers might even lose to the Chargers.
Representing the NFC: The Philadelphia Eagles (see, I told you my picks were boring). I really wanted to pick the Falcons. But I can't. The Eagles are just a better team, even though their defense can't stop the run well enough to win it all.
Final Score: Pats 27, Eagles 17.
