Wait! We're getting the 0-3 Saints at the 1-2 Packers instead of a division game we care about, why now?!?
THE FANTASY of "MOMENTUM" (Charger / Chief / Wilcots 9/30/12 Edition) Okay...a few days ago I mocked the fantasy of "momentum" in football games (and reaped plenty o' dissent) as a concept that SEEMS meaningful, but is in fact usually a fiction, like Santa or the Tooth Fairy. Or a balanced federal budget. My argument was that it's simply a handy way for an announcer to try to explain one team having done (past tense) better than the other for a stretch. My complaint was that this magical, mysterious concept (no relation to actual momentum as discussed by Aristotle, Newton, Wallis, etc.) has the surprising defect/limitation of only working backwards...that is, whereas, if "momentum" truly existed in the NFL, the team that "has" it should surely be expected to continue to dominate. I mean, otherwise, what significance does the term have, other than to describe the past, which all viewers have already seen (and likely TiVo'd)? Well, there it was again today: Midway through the 3rd quarter, with the Chargers up 27-13, CBS's Solomon Wilcots delivered a serious-sounding soliloquy about what a huge factor "momentum" is in football games. Surprise: It came after the Chiefs outperformed the Chargers for a stretch, despite getting their backsides kicked hard for virtually the entire first half. Wilcots used the first half of the 3rd quarter to pronounce the Chiefs to be the team that now had "momentum." (Oh, and after the Chiefs' lousy showing today, one commentator suggested that many folks had expected the Chiefs to have "momentum" from last Sunday in New Orleans...and yet they began today just awful. Amazing) Well, of course the Chiefs did have big-time mystery-momentum, and used it to go 3-and-out their next few series...and lose by a larger margin than they were losing when they were fortunate enough to have gotten the momentum. Now of course, momentum isn't alway this terrible a predictor... but then, if it failed this badly, consistently, we could always bet against it...like we do EmDiggy But no, that would make it a better predictor than it really is! The fact is, about half the time (yep, a coin flip) the team declared to "have momentum" will be the better team from that point on, reinforcing the fiction for those who believe in it. So...no...no actual predictive usefulness. Do I really expect fans to give up the comforting illusion of "momentum" any time soon, after assuming it to be meaningful for decades? No. Is it still worthwhile to try to get people to re-think it? I think so.
Annie Heilbrunn @annieheilbrunn Chiefs media guys were chatting after Rivers presser. Said "Most QBs come in dressed flashy; this guy has on jeans & Ironman watch. Cool." I guess Philip saw the Avengers theme.
All square thus far Pumpy with 11/13 a piece, big improvement this week. Seeing as we both have the Giants in this one, it'll all come down to the MNF to see who claims the WIN this week....... Nice going.
Hahahahahaha another perfect example of "should have kept reading" ...........you're getting the hang of it finally Ol' man, good work. So, we are both at 11 from 14...........not to shabby, big showdown tomorrow between the Choker Romo and Cutler the Headcase for all the marbles .........should be a matchup made in heaven.
Still cannot believe that Pats scoreline, that's an incredible rate of scoring .........did Merriman get resigned to their defence or something, at the half ???????
Hope it's OK to post this here... I just needed to publicly facepalm on this somewhere AndrewSiciliano: Jets owner Woody Johnson says he would take a Romney win in November over a winning season for his team. http://t.co/I37pgLc7 (14 minutes ago from TweetDeck, retweeted byTime4aRing and 40 others)
Goddamn - he's even more clueless than Rex. BTW, Woody - your team isn't gonna have a winning record regardless of the election outcome.
I can't decide if it's the question even being asked or that he actually responded that bothered me more... It's a lose-lose type of question to answer no matter your political affiliation. Not to mention that neither outcome have jack and/or **** to do with one another.