Brayton Street Roll

Meet the man he will heretofore be known to all as "THAT GUY FROM BBC WHO INTERVIEWED MILA KUNIS":

"BBC", for short.

Presumably, he's been sent to conduct a routine press junket interview with Ms. Kunis for her upcoming movie, Oz The Great and Powerful. Get in, get the necessary intel about the film, get out. That's the job. But that's not what goes down because BBC, well . . .

0:02 "I'm petrified right now."

1. He's petrified right now.

0:10  And, "I've never done this before so, so . . ."

  2. He's never done this before.

Ordinarily such a combination of nerves and inexperience might result in a devastatingly awkward six-minute train wreck. Ordinarily:

Boom goes the dynamite!

But, BBC isn't ordinary. First, he is the embodiment of an all together different Internet meme:

Equally important –

He's Bri'ish.

0:14 But like . . . 

  Hugh Grant British, not Austin Powers British. (The charming silver screen version of Hugh Grant, not the Daily-Show-banned version.)

So instead of a Tosh.O Web Redemption-worthy performance, what transpires more closely resembles the plot of Notting Hill.  In the words of IMDB: "A leading American actress (Julia "Mila Kunis" Roberts) meets an attractive but unassuming British man (Hugh "BBC" Grant) and love immediately blossoms."

To wit, BBC's first question for Mila:

"Um, in the nicest possible way, did you enjoy being ugly for once? Because generally you're like, you know, you're hot. Um, so, it's . . . being a witch . . . it's a bit different." 

He's just a boy, standing in front of a girl, macking it instead of doing his job.

(Hold the phone: I just went to Wikipedia to refresh my "seen it a couple of times in bits in pieces on HBO a decade ago" memory of Notting Hill and there's a scene where Hugh Grant, owner of an independent travel bookshop because of course, gets himself into a situation where he has to conduct an impromptu interview of Julia Roberts for her new movie?! One + one = too perfect.)

Ok, let's check back in and see how BBC is doing:

0:32  BBC: "Am I doing alright so far?"

Mila: Fantastic. How you feeling? How do you feel you're doing?

BBC: I'm a little less nervous than when I walked in.

Mila: Right. It's not that bad. It's not that scary.

BBC: [laying on the accent] Eye don't know.

Oh come on, what's the worst that could happen?

Mila: What about this is frightening to you? Tell me.

THAT YOU'LL MAKE HIM SAY THE C-WORD RIGHT TO YOUR FACE.

BBC: Um, well. I'm talking right at you now. There's like cameras everywhere. There's a lot of people.

Or that. That's reasonable too.

Mila: Ye.

BBC: They're all smiling and that, so it's fine. But it's a bit of an unnatural environment. I'm used to being down at my local pub with the boys.

Mila: So this is the same.

No Mila, it's not.

BBC: I can not wait to tell them about this later, because um, when I go back and say to them, You won't– you know they all do sort of quite normal jobs– and I say, I interviewed Mila Kunis, it's going to be hard to be believe.

Mila: Really?

BBC: Yeah.

Mila: REALLY?!

Yes Mila, really.

BBC: I'm going to get massive loud points for it.

Props to loud points.

Mila: Do you get like a free drink out of it?

BBC: I hope so.

This interview has already morphed into into a free-flowing conversation. Their connection is beginning to percolate. BBC is disarming her. 

Mila: I hope so too, buddy. You're doing a fantastic job. I hope you get like a whole round of– what do you like? Whiskey?

BBC: Uhhhh, Yaegger Bombs.

My guess as to BBC's age was just lowered from 26-27 to 23-24.

Mila: Yaegger bombs?! That is disgusting.

BBC: Not into them? Uh, we made this drink called– uh, I don't know if we can say this, but . . . we've got these Loud Bombs . . .

Take note Study Abroaders, "loud" is the go to British slang. Anyway, go on . . .

BBC: . . . You know when like you put Yaegger into the Red Bull? . . .

Yaegger Bombs, sure. You already said that.

BBC: . . .We do a shot of Yaegger, into a double Vodka Red Bull.

Oh my god. That sounds like the worst drink EH-ver.

Mila: Oh my god.

Mila: That sounds like the worst drink . . .

Mila:  EH-ver.

See. I think BBC is implying to Mila that he can guzzle down straight up poison that really should kill him without dying. From an evolutionary standpoint that kind of strength would be very desirable in a potential mate.

BBC: Would you like– I mean, you're more than– you could come join us.

OFFICIAL TIME FROM INTRODUCTION TO ASKING HER OUT – 1:44. Don't hate the BBC, hate the game.

BBC then tells her she could come to his local pub, The Misty Moon, but that it isn't very good and she would be better off coming to his hometown instead. Wooing her further, he proceeds to tell her more about his group of friends that she would meet if/when she accompanies him for a drink:

BBC: The lads would love you. You'd really get on with one of my mates, Sir Dosser.

Mila: Sir Dosser? . . . His name is Sir Dosser? I love him already.

BBC: Yeah, there's Sir Dosser, The Convict, Chango The Beast . . .

These are "the boys" from before with "sort of quite normal jobs"? Sir Dosser, we're told, writes music which I suppose is on the spectrum of what qualifies as a normal job. The others, though, we're left to wonder. My guesses: The Convict makes license plates and Chango, he's a sword swallower with the traveling circus.  Never mind, though, because . . .

IT'S WORKING.

Mila: You are awesome. Like these are your friends? I love it. 

Hai, Ashton.

So, what's the next move? BBC's got momentum. Mila's loving his schtick. She's smiling, laughing, everything's going gre–

BBC: I should get back to the questions.

And he slow plays it! Suddenly, I get the feeling BBC knows EXACTLY what he's doing. I underestimated you, Grasshopper. Don't look over eager. Let her come to you. Play it smooth. I feel like all the lessons from Neil Strauss's The Game are being played out right in front of my eyes. 

Mila: Why? This is way more fun for me, I have to tell you. Please.

Uhhhhhhhh-huh.

BBC: Have you ever been to a futbol match?

Just know BBC never had any intention of getting back to the questions. Not for a second.

Mila: I have never been to a futbol match, but I plan on going to Brazil next year.

For the 2014 World Cup. Even BBC has to admit, that's the ideal place for a first soccer experience.

BBC: Well, here's the other offer.

Or not. Or he could just tell Mila that her plan is f***ing stupid and that he has a much better one, one that involves him:

BBC: I support a club called Watford Futbol Club and they're like my local team, they don't have many fans. . .

Keep in mind this is like telling someone to forget the Super Bowl for a Saturday afternoon ZogSports game. But BBC doesn't care.

Look, if you had one shot, one opportunity to seize everything you ever wanted in one moment would you capture it or let it slip? – Eminem, "Lose Yourself", 2002 and what BBC is thinking at this very moment.

He's in a groove. Why WOULDN'T Mila Kunis choose to watch Watford with him over the World Cup in Brazil with her celebrity friends?! He's played the lead in numerous successful rom-coms. Nothing can stop him now. He is invinci–

Mila: Shouldn't you give me like a jersey?

Oops.

A look of shear dread spreads across BCC's face. For the first time, he's at a loss. His boyish charm escapes him. He begins to stammer:

BBC: I would love t–

Helpless, red-faced, he looks offscreen for help:

Nothing. He's on his own.

BBC: You don't understand . . .

Mila: Where's my jersey?

He forgets how to speak:

BBC: I ehthjkfgkjlsdflkjhsawpj

Things don't get immediately better, either.  BBC finally gets out that he'll send her a jersey to correct his gaffe, but Mila informs him that Watford's color scheme, bright yellow, just doesn't agree with her.

Mila:  Could you make it like, purple? I really like purple.

No, Mila, he can't "make it like purple." SOCCER TEAMS BEFORE CELEBRITY DREAMS. You can't just change the jersey of your favorite club to suit the whims of your movie star future girlfriend. Despite her nonsense – or maybe in spite of it – BBC regains his composure like the Hugh Grant he is and refocuses the conversation around what has worked for him so far: HIS BOYS.

BBC: "But the thing is, I go with the boys and we go see a Watford match, it's a nice day out . . .

He's back to describing their date together as if Jerseygate never happened, isn't he?

BBC: . . . we could go for like a Nandos before . . .

Nandos?

Mila: What are Nandos?

BBC: It's a chicken restaurant.

Mila: Gosh, you're teaching me so much.

He's teaching all of us so much right now, Mila.

BBC: I don't know if I'm doing the right thing here at all.

I smell it. You smell it? Smells like bulllllsh*t.

Mila: This is the best interview I've had today. I'm begging you.

"Fine, since you asked":

BBC: Ok, here's how I see the day panning out

"And this is just off the top of my head. I'm just throwing this out there. I haven't secretly thought about this a million times already."

BBC: We go for chicken . . . it'll be about midday, kickoff's at 3, and then go on to the Watford game . . . it's a Championship team so they're alright, but they're not great . . .

Mila, what do you think about this so far? How does this sound to you?

BBC: This is ridiculous. Ok, if you wanted to come along . . .

Mila: I do. We're having some chicken and we're seeing a Championship League Game, and I'm going to wear a . . . yellow jersey.

OFFICIAL TIME FROM INTRODUCTION TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DATE – 3:47

BBC goes on for a bit, detailing the rest of his plans for their date. They'll sing and cheer, as you do at soccer games. At halftime they'll have some pies – meat pies, Mila, not apple pies like they have in the States – and "bosch" a couple of pints etcetera etcetera. The two love birds go on gabbing back and forth like little school children until a disembodied voice somewhere on set plays the role of responsible adult and tries to ruin all the fun:

Voice: . . . because you have a job to do.  This is– that's not, you know you know– because he has to go work and he has to to–

Mila: Talk about this movie?  

But Mila's not going to let some lady from the peanut gallery come in out of left field and interfere:

Mila: Let me just give you answers to questions I know you're going ask. . .

And for the next fifty seconds Mila psychically rattles off detailed responses to questions she was never asked. If you're curious about the movie, check out 4:52-5:40. If not, enjoy this reaction shot of BBC taken at the precise moment during Mila's soliloquy when he realizes he's in love/this video is soooo going to blowup on the Internet:

SWOON/I'M GOING TO GET THE MOST LOUD POINTS.

Mila wraps up and it's BBC's turn to speak again. Naturally, he begins:

5:42  "My mate Dick-O. . ."

Profession: condom tester?

Mila:There we go.

VOICE: [audible laughter] Oh my god.

Mila: [laughing]

BBC: My mate Dick-O is, um, he's getting married soon.

Mila: Oh, good for him!

BBC: He did say I could get like a "Plus One" to his wedding. . .

Name: BBC Loud Points: 3,893,721

BBC: . . . and now I think about it and I'm not going to get many more chances to– 

Mila: You wanna ask me to go with you to this wedding?

BBC: I'm just wondering.

Mila: Well, I've gone to Marine Ball, so what's another–

Is that a "yes"? That kind of sounds like a "yes"?

BBC: Well, this is what I've heard, so I thought I–

So BBC DID know what he was doing!

Mila: Apparently I just say yes to everything when put on the spot. When's the wedding?

BBC: I think, June?

Come on, no whammy no whammy no whammy no whammy no whammy and STOP:

Mila: I'm actually working. I'm not kidding.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 

BBC, quickly, think of something to say:

BBC: Have you ever– I don't know if I should as–

Oh, just go for it at this point! You're all-in already.

BBC: Have you ever dropped trou at a wedding?

Did NOT see that coming.

Mila: Drop trout?

Amelia Bedelia Kunis: adorbes.

BBC: No, we drop trou. And what it is is, it's just where– I don't know if you do this in America it might just be a U.K. thing . . . but we put on Baywatch and we just take all our clothes off and dance around.

Yeah, prolly just a cultural thing, like you said.

♫♫♫ Some people stand in the darkness/Afraid to step into the light♫♫♫

"CONVICT! THE BEAST! COME ON, THAT'S OUR CUE! WHERE'S DICK-O? DICK-O! SIR DOSSER, GET DICK-O. OKAY! EVERYBODY READY? HERE IT COMES...NOW!!!"

♫♫♫ I'll be ready (I'll be ready)/Never you fear (no don't you fear)♫♫♫

Mila: Did you know I was on Baywatch twice?

BBC: I didn't know that.

Mila's stalker didn't even know that.

Mila: Once I played a young girl who runs to get help because her classmates are drowning. And the second time I played a blind girl who gets lost in the forest.

Baywatch was the best.

BBC: Is that? Am I done?

Voice: Yeah.

BBC: Mila, thank you so much.

Entering the second and final day of the Jeopardy! 2013 Teen Tournament, my man Leonard was in a lot of rooney:

Nilai: $19,000 Barrett: $17,600 Leonard: $3,000

The numbers are revealing, but they don't tell the whole story. Just how grim was it for Leonard?

Shooter McGavin over here didn't even bother to mentionhis name at the top of the show! All he said was:

"Nilai, obviously, is the young man to catch today. Barrett, not that far behind." 

As if Leonard was so poor as to be invisible to Trebek. Which is absurd for the single, simple, hella' obvious reason that...

THIS (the casual spread collar)

IS (the dope nonchalant arm cross)

LEONARD. (That. Hair.)

You had me at af-ro, Leonard. You had me at af-ro.

Let the record show that had I been slated to appear on Jeopardy! as a high-schooler, my mother would have made absolutey sure I had a tie properly knotted at my neck come taping time.

Let the record show further that if I had been growing out my hair at the time as well, mom dukes would've taken one look at me and said, "No way, Jose", to which I would have replied, "My name's not Jose, it's Ben, soooo technically I don't have to listen you", because I was funny and sassy that way back then, and then, without my mom having to say another word, I would have promptly marched myself straight down to the barber to get my hair cropped just the way she liked it.

But Leonard Cooper is a much more amazing 17-year-old than I was, a fact his mother undoubtedly recognizes and which informed her eminently wise decision to allow L.C. Hammer to ... DEW HIM.

Well done, Mama Coop, because she knew you don't mess with greatness.

You nurture it.

You encourage it.

You cultivate it.

But you don't mess with it. And if you want it to stage an epic comeback on the final day of a nationally televised trivia competition you most certainly do not cramp its style.

Down sixteen LARGE Leonard understood he couldn't play conventionally and win, so he did what any teen cheerleader worth her pom-poms would have told him to do and he got aggressive.

Got Got Aggressive

Recognizing that he needed to lock down the big money questions to have any chance at all Leonard buzzed in on a $1,000 clue ahead of Nilai and Barrett...

...even though he hadn't quite figured out the question yet.

Leonard knows he should know this. After all, what teen doesn't have either (a) one always-out-of-control, reckless friend who broke his clavicle skiing or playing roller hockey or however; or (b) one spazzy, injury-prone classmate who broke it trying to get out of a playful full-nelson in gym class? But the correct response continues to escape him and time is running out, so he starts to pat down his own body in a desperate attempt to conjure up the answer.

Finally, thankfully, it comes to him:

What is the, uh, like, the neck bone, uhh ... COLLARBONE!

But was it in time?

Hmmmm. Nilai, Barrett and their friends and family probably don't think so, but the judges count it. $1,000 to Leonard.

Which makes him really, really, adorably happy:

Elsewhere, though, Tommy Lee Jones is still not amused:

Not enough TLC for you when you were younger TLJ?

Heading into Double Jeopardy! Leonard was still behind. To this point, he'd made it clear that he was in it to win it, that he was willing to take some chances to claw his way out of the hole he'd dug for himself on Day 1. But even if everybody knew he wouldn't go down silently, nobody was prepared for his next big move:

Still down a hefty $11,400 overall when, with just seven clues remaining on the board, he uncovers the final Daily Double. Then, 

Leonard inhales deeply, puts down his buzzer and folds his arm.

Trebek announces there's only about a minute left to go.

Turned to one side and looking away from Trebek, Leonard hesitates, pondering how much to wager.

"Uhhhhh..."

Taking another moment longer, Leonard finally turns back to Trebek and announces his bid –

"Eighteen thousand."

An audible gasp rips through the audience as if a shocking revelation has been revealed in a television courtroom drama. Perhaps a concerned few non-believers wonder whether the young boy meant to say $1,800.

Trebek calls the decision "gutsy".

Leonard rips through the final vestiges of the Tanner Stages, becoming a grown ass man on the spot. You can even see it happen in real-time:

Step #1: Admit you're afraid.

Step #2: Face your fear head on and dominate it:

Step #3: Turn your attention to task at hand:

Now all he has to do now is deliver the right ans–

Uh-oh. 

That does not look like the face of someone who knows the answer. Come on, Leonard, THINK. Wait! Is that...

... a grin?

"What is a jury?"

Oooooo-weeeee.

GAME CHANGER.

FINAL JEOPARDY The scores:

Nilai: $14,400 Barret: $9,000 LL Cool L: $37,000 

The category:

Military Men

The clue:

WHAT IS A BADONKADONK?

The actual clue:

ON JUNE 6, 1944 HE SAID, "THE EYES OF THE WORLD ARE UPON YOU"

First up, B-Rizzle:

CORRECT.

Young Clark Kent wagered a very balleresque everything, bringing his two day total to...

Super, man. But is it enough?

NILAI:

Oof, so sorry.

Good job, good effort! But with a combined total of $26,400, Nilai is out of the running.

Which leaves only Leona–

WHAAAAA?! NUH. UH.

MICROPHONE. BUZZER. DROPPED.

GAME, AFROS.

Alex, in the words of Teddy KGB, "pay that mayn chis mo-ney."

By the way, just how cray cray was Leonard's move? Had Nilai given the correct answer he would've finsihed with $40,400, enough to defeat Leonard. And that, ladies and gentlemen and people of all ages, none of us are as awesome as Leonard...except maybe Elyse.

At tonight's performance the role of Tim Duncan, usually played by Time Duncan, will be played by Boris Diaw. Additionally, the role of Tony Parker, usually played by Tony Parker, will be played by Gary Neal.  Lastly, the role of Manu Ginobli, usually played by Manu Ginobli, will be played by Nando de Colo.

Thank you and enjoy the show.

"What's the spread?"  – My Popop, January 31st, 2013, 1:37 PM

To give that quote some context, seven selective biographical facts about my grandfather:

Does he "love when it we call him Big Pop-op"? Excellent question. Unfortunately, we don't really call him that to his face, but I imagine that if I ever took the time to sit down and explain the Notorious reference to him he'd calmly reply, "Ben, I don't know the first thing about rap music or this Biggy fella, but if that's what you want to call me, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me."

Do we "throw our hands in the air, because he's a true grandpa"? No. Again however, I wish we would.

Is this the first time I've ever used this bit? Don't be silly. I've been using it relentlessly around my family ever since I first thought it up at my grandfather's 81st or 82nd birthday celebration.

Popop's is currently 91 years old. Ish. He has advanced for enough along in life where we've lost exact track of his age and now ballpark the number.

With the exception of the Mets, he does not watch sports. He'll be somewhat familiar with the biggest sports stories of the day because he constantly watches the news, but beyond what CNN touches on, if it doesn't have to do with the Amazins', he doesn't know about it.

He's does not care for football.

He doesn't gamble, unless you count the stock market.

To summarize: my grandfather is 90 or so years old; he has only a passing interest in sports; and he couldn't be less interested in wagering on their outcome.

Despite all this, less than 8 minutes into our phone call, Popop guided the conversation towards Sunday's Super Bowl and wanted to know, not which teams were playing in the big game, nor merely who was favored, but specifically what the spread was.

Ahhhh, those Vegas lines. Aside from the constant, looming fear of witnessing a player die on the field, they are what separates the NFL from the boys and what enables the league to generate approximately $9 all the monies per-year in revenue.

"Niners by 3.5", I told my Popop, and then proceeded to dutifully take the old man's action. Because of course I did. How could I not? I mean, even if his bet's a winner, what's he going to do if I don't pay out? (A) I'm his grandson, and (B) he's give or take a year, 92.

Fine, so maybe he didn't really place a bet. But if Big Popop was so much as conscious to the line, it's safe to assume that you too have an interest in placing a bet on the game. Perhaps you and a pal will risk the cost of a friendly steak dinner. Maybe you're in Vegas at this very moment, eager to head to your hotel's sports book; or possibly you're sitting in front of your computer, about to log into an offshore website; or standing face-to-face with a shadowy figure you simply call "your bookie", ready to fork over a fistful of cash. The point is, you're betting, we know this because everyone's betting, and I'm here to help you wager wisely.

Sure, there are plenty of traditional places you could go to read up on the game. Footballoutsiders, for instance, has published film breakdown evaluating how the Ravens' offense matches up against San Francisco's defense, and visa-versa. Real nuts and bolts type analysis, purportedly the inside edge you need to pick a winner. They've also written 2,000 words solely on line play and the run game, complete with pretty screen grabs diagraming what makes each teams' ground attack tick. At some point today, the site's creator, Aaron Schatz will release his definitive preview of the game, as will Bill Barnwell over at Grantland. It's all excellent stuff, if you think that's what'll help you be in possession of an in the money ticket come Sunday night. 

But let's be honest, any Joe Schmo with years of experience dissecting game film and a mathematician's mind for advanced stats could do what those guys do. We're dealing with the NFL here, where people will do anything to gain an advantage over the competition, see, e.g., "deer-antler velvet extract." What I'm can offer is this: the Unconventional Guide To Choosing A Super Bowl Winner. I've broken down Sunday's matchup along, let's call them, "unusual" lines, the types of things the Football Gods take into consideration, to arrive at an infallible conclusion as to who will win cover in Super Bowl XLVII.

I've said enough, let's get into it.

1. Better Harbaugh brother?

Baltimore: John San Francisco: Jim

Incredibly, against all odds, the two opposing coaches in this year's Super Bowl are brothers. Have you heard about this? Super Bowl 47 is the Harbowl, Baltimore John vs. San Francisco Jim. Truly amazing.

Now, I don't consider myself a football historian, but to my knowledge something comparable has only ever happened once before in the sport's storied existence: when Danny O'Shea and Kevin O'shea battled it out to see whose team would get to represent Urbania in the statewide Pee Wee football league. "One town, one team". Likewise, "One Super Bowl, one winner."

In the (all too relevant to predicting the outcome of Sunday's game) movie, Kevin O'Shea, the coach of the vaunted Cowboys, is the older of the two brothers. Between the Harbaughs, John, the coach of the Ravens, is technically the eldest; he's 50, while Jim is 49. However, for all practical brotherly purposes, Jim was the real first-born son. According to Sports Illustrated's 2010 profile, Jim was always bigger and stronger than John, and the only one of the two that could clear the large tree in their front yard with a football pass. As a younger brother myself, I can tell you these facts are the only things that matter, much more important that actual age. What is an older brother but someone who has the superior physical strength to sit on you, take hold of your scrawny arms and cause you to punch yourself, all while gleefully yelling, "Stop hitting yourself. Why are you hitting yourself?" Clearly, in the Harbaugh house, John would have been the younger, smaller masochist, Jim his larger, concerned older counterpart.

Moving on: in Little Giants, Danny lives his entire life in the shadow of Kevin, a one-time Heisman Trophy winner and local hero. Similarly, Baltimore John spent much of his life unable to compete with the accomplishments of brother San Francisco Jim. Jim was always  the golden child, the quarterback who finished third in the Heisman voting and was selected in the first round of the draft by the Chicago Bears in 1987; the one who went on to have a fairly productive 14-year career, retiring with a 77 QB rating and falling one Hail Mary drop short of reaching the Super Bowl in 1995 with the Indianapolis Colts. On the other hand, John, trying to make it in college at Miami ... of Ohio ... as either a defensive back or receiver, blew out his knee twice by sophomore year and never made it to the pros.

His playing days over, John focused on making it in football the same way his dad had, as a coach. Here too, though, Jim ended up on the fast track while John languished behind. Jim retired from the NFL in 2001. Within a year he had his first coaching job as the quarterbacks coach for the Oakland Raiders. From there he secured a head coaching position with a D-IAA school, followed shortly thereafter by a gig with Stanford which quickly led to his current position as head coach of the 49ers in 2011. All told, Jim made the transition from NFL quarterback to NFL head coach in 9 years. It took brother John roughly 24 years to reach the same heights. After various coaching jobs in the college ranks between 1984 and 1997, he he put in 9 years as the special teams coach for the Eagles, followed by another year as the team's defensive backs coach before finally getting the opportunity with Baltimore after Jason Garrett turned down the Ravens' offer.

Jim's Wikipedia entry has 87 references; John's just 6. Clearly, John:Jim :: Danny:Kevin. Which means John's Ravens have the edge over Jim's Niners since in Little Giants – SPOILER ALERT – Danny's Giants defeat Kevin's Cowboys.

Fumblerooski! Fumblerooski! 

ADVANTAGE: JOHN HARBAUGH. One point for the Ravens.

2. Which city has the better iconic TV show? Baltimore: The Wire. San Francisco: Full House.

Even if, in addition to Full House, on the basis of Jim Harbaugh's one-episode guest appearance as Screech's cousin, I were to graciously grant San Francisco Saved By The Bell (only the most important post-Ghostbusters and -Ninja Turtles television show of my pre-teens years) as well, The Wire still takes it. You may never have been honored with tan Emmy, The Wire, but don't say you never won anything.

Nothing personal Kelly Kapowski, you're still my #1 boo.

Cut. It. Out.

ADVANTAGE: The Wire. Two points for the Ravens.

3. Which team's players treat their fellow man better? Remember when Kurt Warner improbably led the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals to the 2009 Super Bowl behind, as Bill Simmons called it at the time, the power of puppies and God? So do I. Karma, man, it matters.

On Baltimore's side there is linebacker Brendan Ayanbadejo, who consciously exploited the Super Bowl's magnified media attention to support the LGBT community and champion same-sex marriage. There is also quarterback Joe Flacco who, when asked his thoughts about the NFL's decision to host next year's Super Bowl in a cold weather city (New York) said the idea was "retarded", quickly realized the potential insensitivity of using that particular word and immediately corrected himself. "Yeah, I think it's retarded. I probably shouldn't say that. I think it's stupid."

Somehow, Flacco has gotten flack(o) for his statement. I see it entirely the other way; Flacco should have been celebrated for catching himself instantaneously on the spot, almost as soon as the word had escaped his lips. The r-word is becoming the newest taboo term, like the n-word and the f-word for gays before it. Where it was once socially acceptable to throw around the word retard liberally anytime someone expressed an opinion you didn't agree with, misspoke, or did something exceptionally dumb, recently a movement has developed to curb such willy-nilly usages of the expression. So Flacco slipped up, because for most of his life he never would have thought twice about using the word retarded to describe a decision he believed to be "stupid" and "crazy" – more politically correct words he would later use to describe the NFL's idea. But, what better way to highlight the changing cultural attitude than to utter the word unthinkingly, hear yourself say in in real-time, recognize and acknowledge your mistake, and correct yourself? I say, job well done Flacco.

Fighting to undo the Ravens players efforts to promote equality and sensitivity is 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver who said on Wednesday that, "We ain't got no gay people on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah, can't be in the locker room." Asked to explain Culliver later said the statements reflected "thoughts in my head, but not how I feel in my heart". That sound you hear is the Bay Area sighing in unison.

ADVANTAGE: AYANBADEJO & FLACCO. One point for the Ravens.

The only reason this category wasn't a three-point blowout for the Ravens was because San Francisco Jim was on the cutting edge of treating female reporters equally when he was a player. In 1987 Jim, in his rookie year with the Bears, escorted Cheryl Raye-Stout into the locker room for their postgame interview even though in previous seasons she had been told by Chicago's PR representative that she did not have access because she was a woman.

SCORE CHECK: Ravens 4, 49ers 0.

4. Wait, really? What about Ray Lewis? Oh right, Ray Lewis went all Brick Tamland and killed a guy.

Ok, not quite. All Ray Lewis did was most likely try to cover up two murders committed by friends and entourage members of his. Yeah, that's another reason the Ravens only carried the category by 1 point.

Upon further contemplation, my ruling on the blog is overturned. Involvement in the concealment of a double homicide is reason enough to decrease the Raven's advantage here to zero.

Adjusted Score Check: Ravens 3, 49ers 0.

Do you know when a buddy of yours say, "Don't say anything about the game, I'm DVR'ing it", and then you look down at your phone and notice that said game is a blowout, and you're not sure if you're supposed to inform your friend so he doesn't waste his time or if you should stay quiet like he asked? Well, I'm in the camp that I'd prefer to know, so I'm just going to come out and say it now: I've looked ahead, and the Niners aren't going to make a comeback.

I'll run through the remaining categories, but I'll spare you the details:

5. Which veteran player in search of a ring would we rather see win one?

ADVANTAGE: Ed Reed edges out Randy Moss.

6. Better player name that doubles as a food reference?

ADVANTAGE: Dennis "Would You Like Some Hummus With That" Pitta beats out R. McDonald and Ted "Tonic And" Ginn because the "R." stands for Ray, not Ronald.

7. Better phrase introduced into the lexicon?

ADVANTAGE: "Deer-antler velvet extract" narrowly edges out "Mosses", the term Michael Crabtree coined for big catches to pay homage to his teammate, because don't over think things. SCORE CHECK: Ravens 6, 49ers 0.

(Additional Note: For the sake of science, I think Ray Lewis owes it to the rest of us to come clean and tell us if he did or did not use this deer-antler substance. Who cares if he cheated? If spraying that stuff under his tongue twice a day was a contributing factor is enabling 37 year-old Ray Lewis to return from a completely torn tricep in only three months – and play well! – what could it do for the rest of us?! I demand answers!

As you can see, it's getting pretty ugly for the Niners, and I'm as surprised as you are. I never saw this Ravens domination coming. Before calling it, though, there's just one more category I'd like to explore, so I can say I was thorough:

8. What does Super Bowl history tell us?

Baltimore's record in the Super Bowl: 1-0.

San Fran's record in the Super Bowl: 6-0.

What can we learn from this? Absolutely nothing. Past performance never guarantees future results, and in this instance it's even more meaningless than usual since the Ravens last Super Bowl appearance was over a decade ago and the 49ers haven't made it this far since 1994. This whole paragraph is a not too elaborate ruse to mention the following statistic: only five NFL franchises are undefeated in the Super Bowl – San Francisco (6-0), Baltimore (1-0), Tampa Bay (1-0), New Orleans (1-0), and .... THE NEW YORK JETS (1-0).

ADVANTAGE: J-E-T-S Jets!Jets!Jets! Suck it Brady and Belichick. Two Super Bowl losses. Ha! Losers. All the points for the Jets.

FINAL SCORE CHECK: Ravens 6 , 49ers 0, Jets ∞

The Jets win.

Because the Jets never get to win.

Historically, prior to Friday night, there were only a few possible outcomes to the Random Fan Half-Court Shooting Contest:

1. The fan could make the shot.

2. The fan could miss the shot.

3. The fan could miss the shot but be tricked into thinking he made it.

4. The fan could technically miss the shot but be given credit as if he hit the shot because he defied the laws of reality along the way.

Now though, thanks to LeBron James, there's a fifth possibility: the fan can make the shot, start to celebrate by himself and then be tackled to the floor by the best player on the planet who rushed the court in celebration.

Word of advice for In-Game Stadium Entertainment Coordinators: there are three and only three types of games you ever need to put on during stoppages and half-times–

(1) Shooting contests of all kinds. If a random fan is throwing the ball towards the hoop, it's perfect;

(2) Anything with children under the age of 12. Dress and dribbles, where the kids put on the players' oversized uniform and race to make a layup...Fischer Price-hoop dunk competitions...full court five-on-fives...stuff like that;

(3) T-shirt tosses. Blast free t-shirts into the crowd, watch crowd go crazy. Too easy. Everything else is superfluous. Dancers, dunking trampolinists, unicycling plate spinners– all of it can go.

You keep it simple, you keep the masses happy.

Anyway: emceeing tonight's event... Bounce, DJ, bounce.

Our shooter for tonight's contest, the man in Carmex yellow, Mike D:

Shout out to shorts. The temperature in NYC has been hovering around 12 degrees for the past few days, but I remember shorts. Temperature in Miami Friday night, bee tee dubs: 72 degrees. Damn you, Miami's tropical climate.

On a scale of 1 to Making-This-Half-Court-Shot, Mike D registers an In His Dreams:

  Before we shoot, DJ Irie, put your hand on Mike D's shoulder and remind him what he's playing for:

Ok, now, Mike D, you smile nervously because you're about to take a half-court shot for $75K in front of 20,000 people:

That's perfect. DJ Irie, make sure he heard the stakes the first time so there's no chance for a misunderstanding:

Wait, DJ, how many did you say?

So just the one?

And how much is it worth again?

$75K. Great! We definitely all got it.

Mike, can you answer DJ Irie's question, "Are you ready?", in a shaky, monotone "yes" so we know for certain you really really got it? Go ahead, into the mic, so everyone in the arena can hear you...

Shout out to calf-high white socks with shorts. Missed those before. Downgrading Mike D's chances from In His Dreams to No Way In Hell. (P.S. It's ok to pick on Mike because he's about to – spolier alert – win $75,000 doll hairs.)

Excellent. All systems are go. DJ, give the man of the hour the basketball and just get out of the way:

No DJ, stop! We get it. $75,000 for sinking one shot from half court. You did your job already, back away from the shooter.

Hereeeee goes...

What up, hook shot.

 Betting windows have closed. Final odds going off: When Pigs Fly.

It's up...

AN–TI–CI–PA–TION

 (Between you and me: No way, right? I mean, even though I've already seen it go in, and I've already told you it's going in, we can all agree, no way this goes in right? Right?)

Zippity doo dah. 

  Holy crap.

(Love that one guy with his arms already raised. He knew before any of us.)

Holy crap!

HOLY CRAP!

Quick! DJ Irie: jump up and down and run around the court like a crazy person!

Robot Guy from Chappelle Show: do what you do!

Great job you two! Now, CUE LEBRON. Remeber Bron Bron, this is the big finale. We're looking for "Will Smith in Fresh Prince of Bel Air" levels of excitement. Don't. Hold. Back. Heck, tackle the guy if you hafta.

BIIIIIIIIG SMILE

Go tell all your buddies how great this is...

...go on, go!

Just finished running the numbers: LeBron James – ("Taking My Talents To South Beach" x Losing To Dallas In The Finals) + (Becoming The Undisputed Best Player In The World x Winning A Ring) + Enthusiastically Celebrating A Random Fan's Half-Court Shot = It's ok to like LeBron again!

Oh, deez? 

Just a couple of novelty cheques. NBD.

Actually, on second thought ... BD.

Very BD.

On Tuesday, January 10th, 1997 Michael Jordan woke up in Utah with the flu. Told there was no way he would be able to suit up and play in Game 5 of the NBA Finals the next night, Jordan summoned all his strength, got his shit together and carried the Bulls to a victory over Jazz.

On Monday, January 14th, 2013 I woke up in New York with the flu. Telling myself there was no way I would be able to do anything that day, I summoned all my strength, got a blanket and pillow together and carried myself to the couch where I more or less stayed for the next four days.

In how each of us responded to an infectious RNA virus of the Orthomyxoviridae family, my haters finally had somewhere to point to to show a clear difference between M.J. and myself.

You can't argue with the stats. The one AND ONLY ONE difference between me and Jordan – exposed.

Just damn it.

As to my picks for the Conference Championship games: keep in mind I haven't been able to do any of my usual prep work this time around. I didn't read the film breakdown columns or advanced stat matchup analyses on Football Outsiders. I didn't read Bill Barnwell's stuff on Grantland. I didn't read Chad Millman's piece about how and why the lines have moved. I didn't even check out Odd Shark or Sportsbook Spy to see which sides the betting money has been coming in on. I'm operating blindly, relying entirely on gut instinct, what I've personally seen to this point in the playoffs and any hallucinatory visions I suffered during my illness, like when I looked out my window and thought I saw a gold miner successfully use his axe pick to protect his haul from a Falcon which had swooped down to steal it when his back was turned. Advantage: Niners ... unless of course what I really saw was just a scraggily bearded hipster using his folded up Razor scooter to shoo a pigeon away.

Before you get too concerned about the picks I'm about to list below, consider that last week heading into halftime of the Seahawks-Falcons game I was 0-2 on the weekend, staring 0-3 in the face as Seattle was trailing 20-0, and looked like Tommy Lee Jones at the Golden Globes:

Ten feet away from your face, Mr. Lee Jones, Kristen Wiig and Will Ferrell are improving like –

and

–and you look like just found out Dr. Richard Kimble survived the train crash? C'mon man! Don't be too cool for school. Nobody likes the too cool for school guy.

ANYWAY: the point being that when it was business as usual I was lucky to escape 2-2, so just because I was sick this week and didn't prepare as I normally might, maybe these picks will still do aaaaa'ite.

(Home team in capitals...)

San Francisco (-4.0) over ATLANTA Normally I wouldn't even consider betting on a team coming off a lights-out playoff game, the same way I wouldn't even consider chasing a player coming off a historic year in a fantasy auction. In both instances you just know you're paying a premium for an unrepeatable performance.

For example, prior to Adrian Peterson this past season, six running backs had rushed for 2,000 yards in a season. And six times those running backs suffered some kind of fall off the next year:

O.J. Simpson – 1973: 2,003 yards, 12 TDs. 1974: 1,125 yards, 3 TDs. Eric Dickerson – 1984: 2,105 yards, 14 TDs. 1985: 1,234 yards, 12 TDs. Barry Sanders – 1997: 2,053 yards, 14 TDs. 1998: 1,491 yards, 4 TDs. Jamal Lewis – 2003: 2,066 yards, 14 TDs. 2004: 1,006 yards, 7 TDs. Chris Johnson – 2009: 2,006 yards, 16 TDs. 2010: 1,306 yards, 12 TDs

If you spent first-running-back-off-the-board money the season after any of these guys had just run for 2,000 yards, by my count, you did absolutely terribly twice ('74 O.J.; '03 Lewis), very poorly once ('98 Sanders), and badly twice ('85 Dickerson; '10 Johnson). It's not any of those seasons in isolation is so horrible, it's that none of those seasons is worth the cost of admission.

That's the main concern with wagering on the Niners this week. When you consider that Vegas typically allots three points to the home team to account for home field advantage – meaning that if the Niners and Falcons are dead even and the two played a game in Atlanta, the Falcons as the home team would be 3-point favorites – the Niners are being viewed as 7.5-point favorites in this game. Is that a true representation of the difference between these two teams, or is that number skewed because Colin Kaepernick and San Francisco just played a pitch perfect game of football that in a million years they couldn't replicate? As you ponder that, don't forget that the 49ers were one muffed punt away from giving the ball back to Aaron Rodgers already down 14-7 last week.

And yet, even though I won't be drafting Adrian Peterson next year, I'm picking the Niners here. Why? Well, because even when Atlanta was up 20-0 last week against Seattle, it didn't ever feel like they were in control of that game. In fact, Seattle's comeback felt less like a miracle and more like something was inevitable. Think about that for a second: a road dog was down twenty points in the playoffs and we all knew a comeback was on the way. That says something about the Falcons. Atlanta's pass rush is nonexistent (and John Abraham, their best pass rusher is playing hurt this week), it's pass defense pathetic. The only reason the game was close enough from the Falcons to be able to put together a last minute drive was because of some curious early play calling and clock management by the Seahawks, mistakes I don't see Jim Harbaugh – who's an infinitely better coach than Mike Smith – replicating.

Even though the 49ers will be able to move the ball and score, I don't think this game is a blowout. Atlanta has plenty of weapons in Rowdy Roddy White, Julio Jones and Tony Gonzalez to put up some points of its own, but on the Georgia Dome turf San Francisco's fast defense will be even faster and it'll be able to do enough for Niners to win...and cover.

Prediction: San Francisco 31, Atlanta 23

Baltimore (+9) over NEW ENGLAND Last week I took Denver -9 over Baltimore in part because I thought the Ray Lewis Goodbye Tour had run its course already when the Ravens defeated the the Colts the week before. I miscalculated, badly. Just check out this building in downtown Baltimore:

The sentiment is not without good cause. Ray Lewis is only three months removed from tearing his triceps, an injury that would end the season of the normal man, and he has forty – FORTY! – tackles over the last two games. Unless his new, terrifying face mask delivers a pain-relieving agent the way Bain's mask did for Bain in Batman, I have no idea how that's possible.

I'm not making that mistake again. I won't count Baltimore out of it because the team has already said it's goodbyes to Ray Ray. Although I doubted the Ravens throughout the regular season, they seem to be the veteran team that was holding a bit back all year and is now turning it on for the run to the Super Bowl. What's more, this particular Ravens team has always played Brady and The Hoodie tough. Per Mike Girardi, here are Brady's stats over his last six games against the Ravens: 59.7 completion percentage, 7 TDs, 8 INTs, 75 QB rating, 15 sacks. In the last two matchups between Flacco and Brady, Flacco, who made me look as silly as Champ Bailey since I was hesitant to trust him against top tier competition, has been the better quarterback by almost any conventional measure (Flacco: 66.7%, 688 yards, 5 TDs, 2 INTs, 107 QB Rating. Brady: 64.9%, 574 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 80.8 QB Rating). Flacco and the Ravens have shown they can run with the Patriots, so 9 points seems a tad out of whack.

If you need more of a nudge to take the Ravens, Baltimore does have one more thing going for it, and I'm not talking about Gronkowski's injury, although that certainly works in their favor. No, what I'm talking about is bigger than that. On Thursday, Baltimore native Robert F. Chew passed away. Who's Robert F. Chew you ask? Maybe you'll recognize him by the name of the character he played on The Wire, Prop Joe? That's right. If you think I'm going to wager against Baltimore the week that Proposition Joe – Proposition is right there in his name! – died you must be crazy.

If you haven't seen Key & Peele's East/West College Bowl skit, go watch it. Like before reading on. For reals, go now. Here's the link so it's super easy. I know 3:32 in Internet video time is like three hours in movie time, but the skit is worth it because the only thing better than the names themselves is the characters Key and Peele lend to those names.

(Waiting for those who haven't seen it yet...)

(Still waiting....)

(They're probably cracking up by now...)

(Great, isn't it?...)

Now that everyone is back here's the complete list of the names Key and Peele came up with for the players ... along with the names of six of the best real-life college football players mixed in for funsies.

Like for serious.

THE BESTEST.

BAWSE.

PRESIDENT.

POPS.

COACH.

HEISMAN.

GOOSE!

PALS.

: )

: )∞

Hai, Bill.

Hai, Jesus.

Picture Him Rollin'.

Stompin In His Air Force One.

Home Sweet Home.

For more pictures of the Prez, go to the White House's official Flickr page.

Some quick comments on each of the headline sport stories this week before getting down to the biznayous of picking the Divisional Round games:

1. Carmelo Anthony recieved a one game suspension for confronting Kevin Garnett after New York's loss to Boston on Monday night, first outside the Celtics' locker room and then again outside MSG by the Celtics' team bus. The unconfirmed twitter rumor is that Anthony finally lost his cool after a long, hard fought battle with Garnett throughout the contest when Garnett said, "your wife tastes like Honey Nut Cheerios".

–I love how Carmelo stood up for Amar'e when Garnett threw a low elbow Amar'e's way at the tail end of a play under the hoop. I'm fine that Carmelo immediately got in Garnett's face and took a technical because it sends the message that he won't back down against Boston's physical play. What I don't love is how he let the battle with Garnett get to him, as evidenced by the fact that Melo shot the Knicks out of the game. (Carmelo was 6-26 on the night and 2-9 in the 4th, including just one shot in the lane in the entire period). Down the stretch Carmelo had that look to him that just told you he was going to be taking the shots down the stretch. Anthony's biggest improvement this season from last has been his ability and desire to work within the offense. My favorite 2012 moment of his goes back to the Knicks comeback win in San Antonio in November. The Knicks had fallen behind by 12 with 7 minutes left in the game. On the first night of a back-to-back against the 7-1 Spurs, you figure it's over. Except Jason Kidd catches fire, hits a couple of threes, gets a couple of steals and all of the sudden it's a four-point game with 5 minutes and change remaining. The Knicks and Spurs see-saw over the next couple of minutes until, right around the two minute mark, the Knicks get their first chance to take the lead. Kidd, playing out of his mind since igniting the comeback, steals the ball again, this time intercepting a pass from Manu Ginobli, and heads in the other direction, jumpstarting a 3-on-2 semi-break for the Knicks. As he crosses half court he could hit Felton streaking up the left side, but Ginobli is back covering the angle on defense and is in position to slide over and block Felton's path to the hoop. Instead, Kidd takes an additional diagonal dribble to his right, giving Carmelo Anthony, trailing the play slightly on the right side, an extra second to reach one of his more coveted spots on the floor, just above the three-point line at the right arc. It's a shot Melo likes, and one he happens to be particularly efficient at ... when he has time to set his feet and when he has a clean look at the hoop. It's also a shot Melo has rushed or forced a million times. Anthony's biggest problem on the Knicks last year – scratch that – one of Anthony's biggest problems on the Knicks last year in addition to his lack of effort on defense was his tendency to revert to hero ball. Hero ball would manifest itself in different ways. Sometimes Anthony would hold the ball for far too long, ignoring slashing teammates and waiving away picks, preferring instead to isolate for himself as the the shot clock dwindled down so that he'd have to take a difficult shot at the buzzer. Other times he would catch the ball far from the basket, on the very same spot on the right arc where Kidd delivered the ball to him this time, 26 distant feet from the hoop, and let the ball fly almost as soon as he'd caught it. Melo wanted to get the glory, to be THE ONE that hit THE SHOT that everyone would be talking about the next day. The more difficult the shot, the better: if it went it, it'd be a better highlight; it he missed, well, you can't blame Carmelo, it was an impossible shot. On this play, Kidd delivers the ball to Melo perfectly, on time and in-sync with Melo's steps. The pass arrives chest high and at just the right moment – if Carmelo wants to take two-steps and rise up and shoot the deep three he can. The Knicks are fighting to stay undefeated against one of the best teams in basketball; they fought back from being down double digits just six minutes ago and are within one now; if he knocks down this shot, the Knicks likely win...and Carmelo will have been the hero, the guy who's image would be slapped on the back cover of the Daily News and The Post under a headline like, HELLO 'MELO! or MELO-DRAMATIC! Even as the play was unfolding I remember envisioning Melo hurrying the shot, missing and the Spurs calmly running a Parker-Duncan or Ginoblli-Duncan pick-and-roll on the next possession to extend the lead and squash the Knicks comeback. But Carmelo didn't shoot the ball when he caught it. He hesitated for a moment, showing shot, but then instead of elevating he put the ball on the floor and blew by Kwhai Leonard who had stepped up to contest the three-point attempt he clearly expected as well. Melo's going to the hole for the lay-up or foul!, I thought. He never does that in these situations! And then he did something even more unexpected. When Ginobli crossed the lane to contest Melo near the rim, Melo calmly dished the ball to Felton who had continued his dash up the floor after Kidd had elected to send the first pass of the break to the other side. Felton was caught off guard for Melo's unselfishness as well, though. So unprepared was he for Melo to dish the ball off at that point that he had stopped cutting to the hoop a step too soon and was flat-footed when he found the ball in his hands a few feet from the hoop. Rather than force the shot at that point he spun around and hit a trailing J.R. Smith for a wide-open three. Splash. Knicks take the lead 97-95 and hold on to win. It was the first time I believed that Carmelo had truly bought in to Woodson's preaching or that he could successfully lead the Knicks deep into the playoffs.

On Monday night though, Melo let Garnett get into his head and under his skin. He reverted back to hero ball – exactly what Garnett wanted him to do – and shot the Knicks out of a tight game down that would have been an important win. The Knicks may have the second seed in the East right now, but they've never proven they can beat Boston. Melo's made tremendous progress this year, he's back to being one of the best scorer's in the league, the same guy who I would stay up late to watch in Denver because he was such a dynamic and efficient threat, but if the Knicks want to win in the playoffs he's going to have to pick his spots better.

–I'm not sure how to comment on the honey nut cheerios story appropriately, but let's just say if that's what was said it's pretty clear Garnett wasn't complimenting Melo for his wife's healthy lifestyle and low cholesterol. For more on what Garnett might have said, check out hashtag #honeynutcheerios on twitter. For a more vulgar take on what he possibly could have meant if he was slightly misheard, I'll refer you to urbandictionary.com

–Melo's one game suspension sounds about right. You knew it was coming. There is video of him leaving the court in the direction of the Celtics' locker room; of him jawing at Garnett in the tunnel; and of him waiting for Garnett in the back-alleys underneath MSG. There's no way the NBA is going to allow that in 2012. "Postgame confrontations", as these non-event events are dubbed, are going to bring suspensions from the league office in today's day and age.

–I wonder how this would've played out if Rasheed had been in the lineup. Rondo too. A Knicks-Celtics playoff series would be a lot of fun, except for all the Paul Pierce step back jumpers. God I hate those.

–I wish teams poked fun at each other more often. In Chicago, if they want fans at the Bulls game to boo, they'll throw the Packers logo up on the big screen. When the Knicks visit the Celtics later in January, the arena should run some sort of honey nut cheerios promotion. Maybe give out mini boxes of honey nut cheerios as the fans enter the building. Or blast them out of t-shirt guns during timeouts. Invite the bee to get the fans riled up. Play a Honey Nut Cheerios commercial during a stoppage. Basically, do something is what I'm saying. For funnies, you know?

2. RGIII's knee injury.

Should The Third Robert have finished the game or should he have been taken out? There are two prongs to this question. The first is, Should RGIII have been removed from the game after he tweaked his already damaged knee to prevent further injury? The second is whether, regardless of the likelihood of injury, should RGIII have been removed from the game because in his visibly diminished capacity, he decreased the chances of the Redskins winning when compared to a perfectly healthy Kirk Cousins?

As to Prong I, the injury: Look, RGIII needs to be protected somewhat by the Redskins. The organization traded two first round picks and a second round pick to get the guy. I.e., the organization traded its future to land RGIII. And so they have to protect that future, even if it means sacrificing a playoff game in the present to do so. RGIII had clearly aggravating the MCL injury that he had entered the game with – he was visibly hobbled on the field – but does that mean he was at serious risk of further injury on Sunday?

I have a friend who has blown out both his knees, one of them twice, for a total of three knee explosions. According to him (and his myriad past doctors) playing with an injured MCL shouldn't destabilize the knee to the point of increasing the risk of an ACL (or LCL or PCL) injury, like the one RGIII suffered late in the game on Sunday. I like to counter that in compensating for the MCL injury, a player might put unusual and undo stress on a different area of his knee/body, thereby indirectly increasing the likelihood for injury someplace else ... but I'm not a doctor, so what do I know. I also heard that the knee brace RGIII was wearing during the game was designed to stabilize the knee in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to shred the ligaments in there. Basically, RG3's leg should have snapped before his ligaments tore, kind of like how ski-bindings work, I suppose. Obviously, neither of those arguments held true, because RGIII ended up hurting himself further, partially tearing an ACL and a completely tearing a PCL, and now he's out 6-to-8 months unless he's secretly Adrian Peterson in which case he'll be ready to go tomorrow.

But that doesn't necessarily mean RGIII shouldn't have been playing. The Redskins employ Dr. James Andrews, a guy so good at his job of repairing the knees/shoulders/elbows etc of superstar athletes that we all know his name even though in reality he's just a surgeon. Seriously, he's the most famous doctor since Gregory House. Despite the miscommunication between Coach Shanahan and Dr. James Andrews and RGIII when Griffin initially hurt his knee Week 14, I have to assume DJA did some sort of check-up on Griffin on the sideline before clearing him to return to action. Why would the Redskins and Shanahan and Dan Snyder have Andrews on the sidelines otherwise? In hindsight, it's easy to say that the Redskins should have been thinking long-term and not allowed Griffin to play on a bum knee, on a field in such terrible condition, but remember Jay Cutler? He was pulled from a playoff game against the Packers two seasons ago under similar circumstances, and he got lambasted – that's right lambasted – in the media and by fellow NFL players on twitter. Or, take a look at the dichotomy between Phillip Rivers and Ladanian Tomlinson in the 2008 playoffs. Rivers suffered a knee injury in the Divisional Rounds, a game the Chargers won against Peyton Manning and the Colts when backup Billy Volek rushed for a 1-yard touchdown late in the fourth. The following day, on Monday, Rivers had his knee scoped so he could return to action the following week against Tom Brady and the Patriots. After the game, which the Chargers lost behind a less than stellar performance from Rivers, it was revealed that Rivers would need off-season knee surgery to repair a torn ACL. Tomlinson too hurt his knee during the Colts game, a sprained MCL, the same injury Griffin played through for the Redskins. Tomlinson was able to practice during the week and was not listed on the injury report come Friday. He then re-injured the knee on the first play from scrimmage against the Patriots, finished the drive with just two touches, and then pulled himself from the game. For the rest of the afternoon he could be seen sitting alone on the sideline, head slumped, his eyes hiding beneath his signature tinted visor. Rivers was heralded and applauded despite his bad day (19-37, 211 yards, 0 TDs, 2 INTs), while Tomlinson's toughness was called into questioned (his backups, Michael Turner and Darren Sproles, combined for 99 yards rushing on 20 carries and 38 yards receiving on 3 catches). As fans, commentators, monday morning quarterbacks et al we can't have it both ways. So, if Dr. James Andrews gave the ok, and Griffin said he wanted back in, I don't see how you can argue with that decision...from an injury-risk perspective.

That still leaves the second prong of the question: Whether the Redskins would have been better off bringing in a healthy Kirk Cousins, who had shown some ability to lead the team in replacement during the season? Again, it's very easy to second guess Shanahan a week removed from the game, but all I can say is this: by the time it was 14-13 Redskins midway through the 3rd quarter, the Seahawks had complete control of the game and it was obvious they were going to win the game. The only real question, after Marshawn Lynch fumbled away six points on the 1-yard line was, was whether Seattle would cover. Griffin had become a shell of himself. He had morphed from RGIII into RG1.5, or RGiii. By the start of the fourth quarter the debate about whether RGiii should still be in was raging in my apartment where I was watching the game with a couple of other people. Then there was play on the Redskins first drive of the quarter where Griffin gimped his way for a 9-yard gain. That's when the argument ended. Even though he had just dragged his leg for the biggest gain of the game for the Redskins since they pulled ahead 14-0 in the first, it was abundantly clear Griffin was no longer a duel threat. At that moment we realized what Seattle had already known: they could load up on Alfred Morris and Pierre Garcon and any other player of note because Griffin wasn't going to beat them. That's when Cousins should have come in the game. It's hard to abandon the one who brought you, as they say, but if you're a Seattle fan at that moment in time, watching a healthy Cousins come off the bench would have been a scarier prospect that facing Griffin down the stretch.

3. Nobody gets into the 2013 baseball hall of fame class

My 2¢: Is the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWA) really not going to let anybody in the Hall of Fame from the steroid era? Really? Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa – all out? The Hall of Fame is a museum whose main function is to present the history of the game for generations to come. How can you tell the story of baseball without those guys (and others, like Pete Rose, too) in the museum? Are we just going to pretend the 1990s and 2000s didn't happen? Write that the inductees cheated and doped right there on their plaques, but don't keep them out altogether. That's preposterous. McGwire and Sosa partially saved baseball in 1998, three years after a messy strike led to the cancellation of the 1994 World Series that nearly killed the sport. And now, even though we all turned a blind eye as it was happening, as players were defying all medical logic and historical precedent, we're going to say sorry, chicks did dig the long ball at the time, but now no hall for you buddy. Really? How is it proper for the BBWA, whose journalist-members at very least ignored the steroid problem (that was right under their noses) and at worst enabled it to thrive (by not reporting on it), to now serve as the gatekeepers to the hall? Bonds in one of the three best hitters in the history of the game; Clemens one the all-time great pitchers. A Hall of Fame without them isn't a Hall of Fame at all.

P.S. The BBWA acronym is way too reminiscent of a niche porn genre. You guys should totally change that to something else.

4. Bama's undressing of Notre Dame in the BCS National Championship game.

Alabama throttled Notre Dame to win it's second consecutive National Championship, I still don't care about college football, and Brent Musberger had to apologize for leering at Katherine Webb, the girlfriend of Alabama's quarterback, on the air. The mini-fallout from that was silly by the way. Musberger didn't do anything wrong. He didn't pant creepily into the microphone or get caught saying "I'd hit that" when he didn't realize his mic was on. He called Webb, Miss Alabama by the way, a "beautiful woman", and then the telecast producers lingered on the shot of Webb a little too long and Musberger filled the air time by talking about her some more. That's basically his job description. What else was he supposed to do? Look, but not speak. And anyway, the ridicule Musberger got on twitter as it was happening was punishment enough.

5. The end of the hockey lockout.

Garth: "O-kaaaaaay. Game oooonnnnnn."

Wayne: "Game on."

Garth: "Game on."

The NHL lockout was an odd beast. Because hockey was involved, as opposed to basketball or football, the NHL's work stoppage received scant attention. You were only likely to hear about the relevant updates – the starts and stops in the negotiations,whether the talks were progressing or deteriorating – if you followed the right people on twitter, for example hockey writers like Greg Wyshynski. I can remember one of those Deadspin "what did ESPN spend time talking about this past week" articles showing that the WNBA had gotten more coverage than the NHL lockout one week in September. Can you ever imagine that happening with the NFL or the NBA? Of course not. But with the NFL in full-swing, the NBA season underway and, apparently, the WNBA playoffs to contend with, the NHL lockout became an app running in the background – you knew it was there when you saw it, but it was easy to forget about it the rest of the time. Weeks could go by with no news, then out of the blue, suddenly, there'd be faint signs of life. Bruce Arthur would retweet a TSN reporter reporting that the NHL and NHLPA had plans to meet over the weekend, only nothing would come of it, or worse the two sides would emerge saying they were very far apart on key issues, and then radio silence for another two weeks. The process was so sloppy, mangled and infuriating that even the diehard fans grew sick of it. But when the players and owners finally struck a deal (just in time to salvage NBC's weekly national schedule that they recently paid $2 billion for because obviously) the hockey fans came back immediately. No matter what they say, the fans always come back, for any sport, but especially for hockey. One friend of mine, a former college housemate, is true hockey fan. He follows the NBA and the NFL cursorily – he knows Sanchez sucks and the Knicks are doing good – but he keeps his ear way closer to the ground for the Rangers. That's his day-to-day, what-are-they-saying-in-the-papers team. This friend was pissssed about the NHL lockout and the way Bettman handled everything. Canceling a few games at the beginning of the year was still understandable. But by the time the NHL cancelled the Winter Classic, its marquee exhibition, things had become unacceptable. The sport wasn't broken; TV money was rolling in; people were making money, so what was the point of all this? He was fed up. F*** the NHL. And then the second the deal was struck and he did a complete one-eighty, immediately. Forty-eight hours after the deal was announced I was walking on the streets of Manhattan with this friend and he was practically skating up and down the blocks, bursting with excitement about the start of the season, telling me why my Debbies would suck and why his Rags would be great. He was back in. All is forgiven. Hockey in back. Gameeee Ooooonnnnnn.

Now on to the main event, the picks.

(Home team in caps...)

DENVER (-9.5) over Baltimore

Why you bet on Denver: The Broncos are better than the Ravens by a wide-margin and you believe Manning v. Brady XIV has been preordained by the football gods.

One more thought on that: Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning Brady-Manning!

Why you bet on Baltimore: 9.5 points is just a weeee bit too high for your liking.

The argument for the Ravens rests on the theory that the Broncos haven't shown enough to be favored by so many points. It's true that the Broncos beat the Ravens in Baltimore by 17, but the Ravens defense was decimated with injuries at the time and will be able to slow down the Broncos enough this time around to stay in the game. Denver, despite its 13-3 record, hasn't proven that they're a truly elite team as yet, because they played the second easiest schedule in the NFL. Against playoff teams, the Broncos were only 2-3 and in each of their three losses (to Houston, New England and Atlanta) they got down by at least 20 points before staging late comebacks that made the games look closer than they really were. Does that sound like a team that should be giving nearly double digit points...?

Deciding factor: Ray Lewis already had his goodbye tour last week.

9.5 is a lot of points. Just seeing such a high spread conjures up images of a cheap backdoor cover. You can picture Denver coasting, up 16 late in the fourth with the ball on their own 35. On first down Manning hands it off to Moreno who picks up four yards and the clock ticks down to below the six minute marker. It's now 2nd-and-6 and Manning brings the play clock all the way down to its final seconds before another simple handoff to Moreno. This one nets just two yards and suddenly it's 3rd-and-4 with 5:33 left on the game clock. The Broncos are up two touchdowns and two 2-point conversions so the game is almost certainly over, but backing Denver at +9.5 you're only up 6.5 points, less than one score. (By the way, this type of scenario is why I always thought it'd be a great idea to launch a sports television network which announces the game entirely with the spread and over/under and other bets in mind. Or forget about an entire new network, there should just be a button on your remote – like SAP – that switches the announcers from Michaels and Collinsworth to Vegas sharps like Teddy Covers and and Al Boston. Either way, I'd definitely watch that channel. Anyway back to the action...). It's 3rd-and-4 and you're praying you see Manning take the snap from under center and drop back to pass. You have no confidence in a run play. The ball is hiked...Manning turns to hand it off, but it's a play fake!...he's throwing!...but it's incomplete. Now the Broncos are forced to punt and with 4 minutes and change on the clock. You think to yourself that the Broncos D will likely sit back in prevent defense, anything to protect against the quick score. For the rest of the game, you know you're going to have to sweat out dump offs to Ray Rice and first down completions to Anquan Boldin that seem to be coming too easy. The Broncos will win, but Flacco might kill your bet.

Yeah, that scenario is possible. But Denver is the clearly the better team here. Even though the Ravens handled the lowly Colts last week, I'm not convinced they cover the spread without Vinatieri botching a 40-yard field goal with the score at 17-9 with 11 minutes left in the 4th. I wrote last week about how Flacco is not a bad quarterback or a great quarterback, but merely a good one. An average one. He puts together some junk games that make you think no team could ever win a Super Bowl with him at the helm. Then other times he teases you with superb games that make you think he could be better than he really is. Last week was one of those games that make you believe in Flacco. He looked impressive, making some tough throws to Boldin that might give you pause with a 9.5 spread. But the Broncos are no Colts. The Colts pass defense is poropus while the Broncos defense is solid. This week Flacco will look like a different quarterback, a worse one.

If you're still concerned, lean on this: Ray Lewis' last game in Baltimore was overhyped. There's no juice left in that storyline. It's played out. Over. Somehow, Ray Lewis returned from a torn tricep muscle that was supposed to sideline him for the season in time to suit up, play and lead the team in tackles last week against the Colts. I'm sure you noticed, because it was all anyone wanted to talk about before the games when discussing the Ravens. First, we were bombarded with "Ray Lewis' Last Game" storylines, never mind that it would only his last home game if the Ravens went on to beat Indy. Then we got to watch him embrace with Roger Goodell on the sidelines for way too long before kickoff. Then he did his infamous pre-game dance. Then came the game itself – where Lewis sported a Bane-like facemask which I presume, like Bane's, was pumping venom into Lewis' system to quell the excruciating pain that otherwise would have been shooting out of his arm – and the constant noise of the announcers fawning over Lewis' every play. Next we got to see Lewis check in on offense for the final kneel down and dance on the field a second time in front of the home crowd as time expired. Finally, during the postgame, NBC ran a comprehensive eight minute Behind The Music-type piece that took an honest, hard-hitting look back into Lewis' role in the stabbing deaths of two men in Atlanta during Super Bowl week in 2000.

Ok, I made that last one up. They did no such thing. Instead, they just praised him and praised him and praised him. As someone wrote on twitter last Sunday (I'm paraphrasing because I couldn't find the exact tweet): "The media talks about Ray Lewis the way I would talk about Ray Lewis to his face." You know, because he's a murderer.

The point is, the Lewis story has been completely saturated. The hug, the dance, the dance again. It felt like last week was his goodbye, but in effect it was. The Ravens can't dig into that inspirational well again and they're not good enough to hang with Denver on their own, something we learned when the two teams played each other in Week 15 in Baltimore (final score: Denver 34, Baltimore 17 ... and it wasn't that close). Lewis already has his post-playing days gig lined up with ESPN; he'll be offering his insights on air by the time the Super Bowl roll around. Manning vs. Brady XIV is happening. Prepare yourselves accordingly.

Prediction: Denver 30, Baltimore 17.

Green Bay (+3) over SAN FRANCISCO.

Why you bet on Green Bay: Rodgers vs. Kaepernick.

Why you bet on San Francisco: The same reason you can bet on any home team in the second round of the NFL playoffs – they're one of the best teams in the league playing in their backyard after a week of rest.

Deciding factor: Too many question marks for San Francisco.

To me, the Packers feel like the playoff team that is getting healthy and hitting its stride at the right time. We saw something similar with the Giants in 2011 and these Packers in 2010. Rodgers is playing out of his mind; Clay Mathews and Charles Woodson are back and playing. The Packers feels very, very dangerous. On the other hand, the 49ers, a very tough team, have some question marks heading into this game. Can Kaepernick be trusted? The Packers defense relies on turnovers to stop its opponents. They'll give up some yards, they'll give up some points, but they're also opportunistic. Kaepernick may be able to do some things Alex Smith couldn't do, but one thing Alex Smith showed over and over again over the past couple of years is that he protects the ball. I'm not convinced we can say the same thing about Kaep just yet. And then there is the question of Justin Smith's health. Since he left the game against New England at halftime with a partially torn triceps, the Niners' defense has been a shell of itself. I don't know how healthy he is coming into this game, and I can't back San Francisco, giving three-points in what feels like a toss-up game, without knowing Smith is at full speed. Not against Rodgers. Not against a healthy Packer team.

Prediction: Green Bay 27, San Francisco 20.

Seattle (+2.5) over ATLANTA

Why you bet on Seattle: The Seahawks might be the most well-rounded team in the league, elite by advanced metrics across all phases of the game, while it's unclear if Atlanta is as good as their #1 seed would have you believe.

Why you bet on Atlanta: Seattle on the road for a 1 PM Eastern game.

Deciding factor: Nate Silver picked the Seahawks.

As I was going over this game in my head, I was surprised at how easy it was for me to come up with reasons to back the Falcons. The whole season I had felt the Falcons hadn't shown us much to justify their lofty record. Their entire schedule seemed to be littered with close victories against mediocre teams. Meanwhile, Seattle had beaten the best of the best, teams like New England, San Fran, Green Bay (technically). Yet, when I was deciding which team to pick in this game I found it surprisingly easy to come up with reasons to take the Falcons: Atlanta has one of the better home field advantages in the league...Seattle is not as dominant on the road...Seattle has crossed the country three times in the past week, traveling nearly 7,000 miles since last Friday...a 1 PM Eastern kickoff will feel like 10 AM to the West Coast Seahawk players...everyone seems to like Seattle this week...Matt Ryan is experienced, Russell Wilson is a rookie...Chris Clemons is out with an ACL tear...Roddy White and Julio Jones are scary...Marshawn Lynch has a foot injury...before RGIII got downgrade to RGiii last week it looked like the Redskins were going to blow the Seahawks out of the building...

But then seer/prophet/fortune-teller/oracle/witch/wizard Nat Silver said his Super Bowl pick was New England–Seattle and all my fears melted away. You don't fux with Nate Silver.

Prediction: Seattle 27, Atlanta 21.

NEW ENGLAND (-9.5) over Houston

Why you bet on Houston: See, Baltimore, Why you bet on.

Why you bet on New England: See, Denver, Why you bet on.

The best reason I could come up with to back Houston was because it seems unlikely that both AFC games will be decided by double digits, so I'll pick one, either Denver or New England, not to cover even though I think both win the game. That's a weak reason to back the underdog in the playoffs, so I'm just going chalk and taking both New England and Denver to win and cover. That, and Matt Schaub did nothing in his first ever playoff start last week to earn my trust. If anything his play pushed me further away from believing in him...and last week I picked Cincinnati in part because I didn't fully trust Schaub even though he was going against Dalton, so my level of confidence in Schaub started pretty low to begin with. P.S. Don't forget than Gronk and Hernandez are both suiting up for the Pats for only the sixth time this season.

Deciding factor: Manning v. Brady XIV, it's bigger than all of us.

What is there to say about the NFL Playoffs that hasn't already been said about frosted flakes?

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself, certainly couldn't have brought Tony's showmanship. Now I want a bowl of cereal. On to the picks...

(Home team in caps)

Bengals (+4.5) over HOUSTON

Popular Dueling Narratives Coming Into This Game:

The Bengals have been playing better football than the Texans since both these teams returned from byes in Week 9.

vs.

Houston coasted a bit down the stretch, resting players and getting healthy after an 11-1 start, and has a much better track record over the past two seasons – including a convincing playoff win over these same Bengals last season with backup quarterback T.J. Yates under center.

Questions To Answer For Yourself Before Wagering:

To bet on the Bengals: Are you ok betting against J.J. Watt? At some point in this game, J.J. Watt will do something – tip a pass that leads to an INT, jar the ball out of Dalton's hands etc... – that could possibly swing your wager. Can you live with that?

To bet on Houston: Are the Texans really the better team? It's hard to back a team giving any points, let alone 4.5, if you are not absolutely convinced they're better than their opponent. Are the Texans more like the team that beat Denver in Week 3, started 11-1, and for a time looked like the league's best team, or are they more like the team that finished the season 1-3, losing badly to fellow post-seasoners New England, Minnesota and Indy?

Deciding Factor: +4.5

It would be one thing if this were a 3-point spread. Then, maybe, I could talk myself into Houston. But at more than a field-goal, I'll take the points. I worry what's going to happen to Cincy's offense, which failed to score a touchdown against Pittsburgh in Week 16 and struggled again to move the ball the next week against Baltimore's B-team backup. Houston, by way of Jonathan Joseph, has the means to take A.J. Green out of the game, leaving little else for the Bengals to rely on to score. At any point during fantasy this season did you say to yourself "Crap, I'm playing the guy who has BJGE?" Didn't think so. So, the Law Firm doesn't scare anyone, leaving ... let's see ... I suppose...Jermaine Gresham. Like I was saying, not a ton of other options beyond A.J. On the other side of the ball, though, Cincinnati's defense is good, an underrated unit that hasn't given up more than 20 points in a game since Denver rallied late with two touchdowns in the fourth quarter to beat the Bengals 31-23 on November 4th. In Geno Atkins, the unit has one of the few players worthy of possibly being mentioned in the same sentence as JJ Watt. Ok, maybe not the same sentence, but after a semicolon might be ok. Like, if you said, "JJ Watt is really good at football", you could then pause briefly and say "; so is Geno Atkins." The Bengals also go four-deep at cornerback, so they are capable of taking away the Texans only that at wide receiver, Andre Johnson, in the same way Houston can neutralize A.J. Green. That leaves, most likely, Arian Foster as the difference maker. Here there is some debate. How dangerous is 2012 Arian Foster? He rushed for 1400 yards this season, but racked up 351 carries while doing so, the most in the league. His 4.1 yards-per-carry was respectable but the lowest of his career ... which is more than you can say for his 5.4 yards-per-reception which fell off a cliff compared to his typical numbers. At times Foster looked worn down this year, but he's had a chance to rest a bit down the stretch so it's unclear which vintage of Foster we'll see on Saturday, 2012 or 2011.

So far, more or less a wash, meaning take the points, unless we're forgetting something...

...ah yes, quarterbacks. Dalton vs. Schaub. Hmmmm. I don't distrust Dalton as much as Cartman distrusts him (because he's a ginger), but I don't totally trust him, either. He won't lose the game for the Bengals, however if the Bengals are down a touchdown late, on the road, with J.J. Watt lurking in the passing lanes and/or knocking him to the ground, I'm not too confident in Dalton's ability to drive his team down the field for the game tying - and bet saving - touchdown. On the other hand, have you seen Schaub's second half numbers? Did you know Saturday will be his first ever playoff game? No really, I'm serious, have a look for yourself.

Normally, I don't believe in betting a road underdog that I don't see winning the game, but that's where I'm headed here. It feels about 50/50 whether Cincy or Houston wins outright, and while I'm giving the slight edge to Houston because Arian + Watt > than BJGE + Atkins, there's too much value in the 4.5 points, and too much uncertainty in the Texans, to pass up the points. I'm taking the Bengals.

(......) (......) (......)

Ok, nothing happened. I was making sure that still felt ok after I actually typed it aloud, because, I mean c'mon, these are THE BENGALS after all. But I kept my food down, I didn't gag, I think it's going to be ok. I'm taking the Bengals.

Prediction: Bengals 17, Houston 20.

PACKERS (+7.5) over Vikings

Popular Dueling Narratives Coming Into This Game:

The Packers defense can't stop...won't stop...Adrian Peterson.

vs.

Who cares that the Packers defense can't stop Adrian Peterson, they'll cover anyway. One of two ways this happens: (A) Rodgers and the Packers jump out to an early 10+ point lead, forcing the Vikings to abandon the run and lean on Ponder; or (B) Adrian gets his 200 yards like he did last week, only Ponder doesn't have the best game of his career, makes one or two critical mistakes and the Packers pull away late.

Questions To Answer For Yourself Before Wagering:

To bet on the Packers: How do you feel about betting against man, freak, stud, beast, badass, superstar, baller, phenom, all-around-good-dude and medical marvel Blair Walsh? Just kidding! Adrian Peterson. Can you stomach wagering real life, hard earned, American doll hairs against All-Day Adrian Peterson?

To bet on Vikings: Can you back Christian Ponder on the road against Aaron Rodgers?

Deciding Factor: Aaron Rodgers

If you don't think Adrian Peterson is the 2012 MVP, then by extension you support the position that quarterbacks should have a separate award, similar to the Cy Young for pitchers. Is Peterson more important to his team than Peyton Manning is to Denver or Tom Brady is to the Patriots or Rodgers is to the Packers? Probably not. Denver just won 13 games and presents a strong case for the league's best team entering the playoffs – an assertion seconded by the soothsayers in Vegas who have the Broncos as the favorites to win the Super Bowl right now. Where would they be without Manning? How many games would they have won? Eight?....Five?...Less? Before you answer, try to name Manning's backup. Now, replace Manning with a merely average quarterback, say, oh, Christian Ponder who just so happens to rank 21st out of 39 according to footballoutsider's primary DVOA and DYAR statistics (the former represents value per play, the latter total value). Pretty bleak, isn't it?

So, if you're making the argument against Peterson for MVP – and I'm not; I would support QBs having a separate award, but since they don't yet, AP gets my MVP because otherwise no non-QB should ever ever ever win the award – it goes something like this: Adrian Peterson was the best player in the NFL this season, but because of the ever increasing importance of quarterbacks in the NFL, probably not the "most important". Look, what Peterson accomplished this season was remarkable. I can't remember anything quite as impressive as Peterson's 2,097 yards given the circumstances. Running backs simply aren't supposed to matter this much in 2012, not when the rules have been repeatedly tweaked, little by little, year after year for the past decade to favor the passing game. Also, running backs simply aren't supposed to blow out their knees in Week 17 of one season and then return 252 days later for Week 1 of the following season. At all. Period. Let alone come back, terrorize the league, and put together one of the best season's any running back has ever had in the history of football.

Eighteen months. That's what everyone always said. It takes twelve months or so to get back on the field and roughly eighteen months to get back to full strength. Peterson must have heard wrong though, because he cut the recovery time down to eight months, forget about teen. In so doing forced us to reconsider everything we ever thought we knew about an athletes' rehabilitations from major knee injuries. All of which, again, makes him the best player in football, relative to what others at his position are doing. But still not most important. Adrian Peterson literally carried the Vikings into the playoffs one unbelievable run at a time. There hasn't been a running back as exciting to watch since me and all my friends were doing a terrible job pretending to cut and juke like Barry Sanders in our back yards. (For funsies, compare Peterson's 2012 to Sanders' 1997)

But despite alllll of that would the drop off from Adrian (1st in DVOA and DYAR amongst RBs) to ... how convenient ... Denver's running back (before he got hurt) Willis McGahee (22nd in DVOA and DYAR) be as severe as Manning to Ponder? I suppose the question boils down to this: all else being equal, would you rather have Ponder and Adrian or Manning and McGahee. I'll take M&M ... no disrespect to Adrian who I love so please don't tell him I said so.

The point being this: quarterback is king in the NFL. As scary as it would be to bet against Adrian All Day Can't Stop Won't Stop Bad Boy For Life Peterson, it would be even scarier to bet against Aaron Rodgers.

Prediction: Packers 30, Vikings 16.

BALTIMORE (-7.0) over Colts

Popular Dueling Narratives Coming Into This Game:

The Colts are frauds, statistically the worst 11 win team ever measured, by a lot a lot.

vs.

Statistics can't explain ChuckStrong.

Questions To Answer For Yourself Before Wagering:

To bet on the Ravens: Are the Ravens themselves good enough to exploit a weak Colts team? How about after you account for the ChuckStrong phenomenon?

To bet on Colts: Just how bad is Indy and are you comfortable relying on a late game backdoor cover if that's what it comes down to?

Deciding Factor: Colts 9, Jets 35

I want to back the Colts and Pagano, I really do. That's the good story, the inspirational story, the story you want to root for on Sunday. But the Colts lost by 437 points to the Jets at one point this season. I know 35 - 9 = 26, but adjusted for the Jets' ineptitude that translates to a 437-point loss. The steep conversion rate surprised me too at first, but I double-checked the math and everything ... it checks out. Baltimore is only mediocre team in all phases of the game, but a couple of things swayed me back towards them anyway:

(1) Flacco isn't an elite quarterback, but he also isn't terrible. There's a tendency when evaluating NFL talent, especially at the quarterback position, to not know what to do with players who are merely good. Romo, Bradford, Stafford ... these are guys who are merely good. Not the worst (as their detractors would have you believe) and not the best (even though, from time to time, they tease us and make us think they could be), but still good. Some days they play better, some days they play worse, and on average they're somewhere right in the middle. Well, Flacco fits into this not terrible, not elite, just good category...a problem later in the playoffs, but not against this Colts team. Flacco has elevated his play against a number of poor opponents this season, which means he's certainly capable of putting up a "better than he actually is" performance against Indy's below average, porous pass defense in Round 1;

(2) As good as Luck has been in his rookie year, he is turnover prone, especially on the road. Cue: Ed. Reed. and his seemingly annual playoff-line swinging interception return for a touchdown;

(3) Ray Lewis' valiant attempt to steal some of Pagano's thunder by announcing that he plans on retiring after the season. It pales in comparison to Pagano's story – actually, pales is way way too weak a word...how about albinos? Ray Lewis' impending retirement albinos in comparison to Pagano's cancer-defeating return to the sidelines, but Lewis has been the heart and soul of the Ravens franchise for more than a decade; that this is likely his last home game and possibly his last game ever will matter to his teammates. It won't be the emotional tidal wave of ChuckStrong, but it'll provide a noticeable ripple...maybe just enough to protect against the backdoor cover you know will be in play with Luck.

Prediction: Ravens 27, Colts 17.

Seahawks (-3.0) over REDSKINS

Popular Dueling Narratives Coming Into This Game:

The Seahawks are the best team in the league.

vs.

The Seahawks are a different team on the road.

Questions To Answer For Yourself Before Wagering:

To bet on the Seahawks: Wilson on the road > A hobbled RGIII at home?

To bet on the Redskins: How healthy is RGIII? Can the Redskins ride Morris to a victory if RGIII isn't 100%?

Deciding Factor: Fate.

Isn't Seattle @ Green Bay the perfect bookend to the 2012 season? Isn't that the matchup that seems destined for the NFC Conference Championship game? A rematch of the Touchception game which robbed the Packers of a win (and a 2-seed as it turns out), led to the ousting of the replacement refs, and began Goodell's season-long comeuppance. (First, he looked awful for not giving the refs their relatively – compared to the $9 billion per year business that is the NFL – modest demands; then he had his powers finally whacked down to size a bit when Tagliabue lifted the Bountygate scandals; next, he started taking widespread flack for the hypocrisy inherent in issuing fines and suspension to players for impossible-to-avoid-when-moving-and-reacting-at-100-mph-hits while also expanding Thursday Night Football to a weekly affair; and finally the league's drug testing policy was challenged and its Adderall problem was brought to light when Richard Sherman had his banned substance suspension lifted).

Can't you already see us revisiting replays of Golden Tate's catch; footage of Tate's post-game interview lie where he adamantly states that he actually caught it; and the Packers players' vitriolic tweets right after the game ended ad nauseum for an entire week? Of course you can. Because that's where were headed.

Also, not that it matters much because nobody can mess with fate ... but for what it's worth, Seattle is the better team, especially with RGIII not completely healthy. Mostly because of the fate thingy, but for that reason as well, Seattle is the pick.

Look carefully. That second move isn't another crossover. IT'S A BACK-TO-FRONT BETWEEN THE LEGS. Promise.

He finishes the layup too. But you already knew that. BECAUSE HE'S CHRIS PAUL.

Jose Canseco took to Twitter on Tuesday to announce his ten resolutions for the new year. To repeat: Jose Canseco took to Twitter to announce his plans, commitments, hopes, wishes and dreams for next 365 days of his life. This post is heading exactly where you think it's heading, so let's get into it ASAP. On behalf of myself and Jose: Happy 2013!

Wow, thanks for asking. I wasn't expecting you to ask. I assumed your twitter feed, your show. Hmmmm. You caught me off guard, I need a second to think. This is SO much pressure. I'm the worst at these resolution thingies. I never have anything good to say. Ok, ok, I'll try. Don't make fun. Ok. Drum roll pleeeeeeeeeease...Number One: Be mor–

Oh. I thought you were giving me the green light to answer. But, no, yeah, you first. Pardon me for interrupting. My mistake. This is you're thing and that's a really good one. I figured Jose Canseco's New Years resolutions was going to be a big funny joke. Like when you figured out time travel; or that time you eulogized Al Gore; or when you blamed global warming for sinking the Titanic. But that was really sweet and sincere, Jose. Seriously. That's a perfect resolution. Concrete, achievable, within your control to make it happen. I'm sorry I doubted you. Now I feel like an ass. Go on, please...

That's another good one. Who doesn't want to get fitter and healthier? No using steroids though! (HAHAjustkidding). That'll be one of my resolutions too. This is great!

Ok number three is a bit more vague. Certainly not as good as your first two, but those were gems. A drop-off was to be expected. The sentiment is nice, though, and people are ALWAYS getting screwed so you'll have lots of opportunities to help...wherever you can. Help those who are less fortunate than you. Can't go wrong with that...

Now you're getting unfocused. A player OR a manager. By all means, work to get back to baseball (just don't forget about your promise to your daughter – and yourself), but what you would need to do to get back into the Bigs as a player is very different that what you would need to do to get pegged as a manager. "Dress for the job you want" and all that. Wait, actually, in baseball the managers and the players wear the same thing. Forget that I mentioned that saying. But you know what I'm saying: you should probably choose one or the other. They're different jobs is all. Also, consider making the dinners a separate resolution. It's not really related at all, plus the way you have it now you won't be able to tick this resolution off as completed unless you do both. It'd be a bummer to be batting clean-up on the As next year but not have accomplished your goal because you hadn't had the chance to break bread with Bud Selig. Something to think about. (By the way: Is it one dinner with each, multiple dinners with each, or multiple dinners with all of them? Just curious.)

This sounds familiar.

(Thinking...)

(Thinking...)

(That too, but that's not what I'm thinking about...).

Oh, right! This was supposed to have gone down already. Way to be for following through on last year's To Dos. That shows a certain amount of dedication and determination. If Shaq v. Canseco does happen this time around, remember not to swap in your twin brother at last minute without telling anyone like that other time. This isn't an old Olsen twin movie – people will be able to tell it's Ozzie and not you.

+1: For knowing who Ponce de Leon is.

-1: For having two number fives.

+1,000,000: For thinking this is not only possible, but that it'll take ≤ 365 days to invent, develop and launch. Dare to dream big, Jose, dare to dream big.

#YesWeCanseco. #UnitedStatesOfCanada.

Smart move leaving the door open to the possibility of founding not merely two, but three or four or five or six or even seven great companies. Two would've been too limiting, what with one spot already occupied by Ponce de Canseco, the only "REAL" anti-aging drink on the market. This way you'll have plenty of room to spread your wings.

I'm not going to mention the irony of having a typo in the same tweet where you talk about writing your third book. Let's talk book names. Your first was Juiced!, which blew the lid off baseball's steroid issue; but nobody believed you at the time so after the Mitchell Report you came back with Vindicated and told us EVEN MORE players indulged in steroids than you told us about the first time around; by now, we all get it: A LOT of baseball players used steroids. Well, almost all of us do. All of .... except for little children that is. My niece is a little over 3 years old and she doesn't know diddly about the steroid era. So for your third book, I say you go after the toddler demo with the sequel to Everybody Poops, Everybody Cheats – a kids book aimed at the recently potty trained to be read to/by children as they "make" on their trainer toilets.

Doesn't it seem like Canseco gets more than 140 characters per tweet? Don't his tweets seem longer than your tweets, like his tweets are juicing? Up to the point where this sentence began I had already used 137 characters. Meanwhile, Canseco's whole tweet used only 136. I know because I copied it into twitter to see. I mean, he wrote "companies" twice, a totally unnecessary repetition and a waste of space. It's like he's flushing characters down the toilet. And yet...four characters left over?! No I'm not bitter, I'm just sayin' is all!!!!

#Animal_products_and_human_health_are_neither_products_nor_companies. #Environmental_is_an_incomplete_thought. #100/100_promotional_spots_will_come_from_beer_sponsors.

You know how, unless if you're Kobe Bryant, if you give yourself a nickname nobody will call you by that nickname? Yeah, same principle applies to calling yourself an A-Lister. Moreover: too, many, commas. You are to the comma what Amar'e is to the apostrophe.

Hey Joey,

I'm writing because I was hoping Jose could help me. I'm pretty sure I've been getting too few characters on Twitter. Do you think there is anything he could do help? They're totally screwing me! Tell him I say thanks in advance. Oh, and Happy New Years!

All the best,