I love "The Sports Reporters" on SportstalkESPN980.  For my money (none), it's the gold standard in the industry.  That said, they aren't above reproach.  They had a discussion as to whether this was a must-win Super Bowl for either team.  USA Today's Larry Weisman was in-studio to join the discussion.  Judging by his tone during the topic, it was easy (at least to me) to tell he shared my sentiment.  If you played nineteen games, might as well win the twentieth if you're lucky enough to have made it.

*****

I agree with Scott Van Pelt's notion that the rush to diefy and proclaim "best ever" is a bit old.  Best ever needs these elements: time, drama, and aesthetics.  Sure this Super Bowl had drama.  Aesthetically, we're talking 150 penalty yards, review stoppages, and no running element.  Credit the defense for the latter point, but we weren't talking about a balanced game.  Plus, a clear night in Tampa isn't terribly memorable.

Which brings me to this point: why are conference championships subject to home-field nuances, but Super Bowls are not?  I'm not talking about neutral sites.  You need those.  I'm talking about the instant disqualification of seventeen stadiums as Super Bowl sites.

*****

The ongoing question is "Kurt Warner: HOF?"  Here is my take copied from my fantasy league's discussion board:

If people argue that Ken Stabler is the best QB not in the HOF, it stands to reason that Warner's numbers should eclipse Stabler's. Warner's rate stats (comp% and td/int) are significantly better than Stabler. Warner has played fewer years. Even so, he should eclipse Stabler's TD total next season (he already has the yards). Stabler is 7-6 in the playoffs and Warner is 8-2. If Warner doesn't make it, he at the very least, replaces Ken Stabler as the best on the outside.  It should also be noted that he is better than some QBs already in the HOF (Namath).  

Some people just buy into their own mythos.  Someone who plays in a town full of unnecessary Ws and Hs has bought into the C on his chest.  What a captain does on a baseball team is beyond me.  Sammy Sosa was a captain.  He was so vital, that he took two detours after his captaincy ran out in Chicago.  Derek Jeter is a captain.  I'm not so sure that he speaks for the team.  The fans can adore him, but in terms of face time, he's just another big personality with an extra letter on his uniform in a vain attempt to make his face time carry more weight.  All that said, Jeter will finish with more than 3000 hits in his career.  Sosa finishes with an asterisked home run total. 

Varitek was ready just to finish.  Theo Epstein's momma raised no fool.  The notion of "the captain" is a nice, romanticized notion for a town that loves its baseball team.  As the man in charge of the components of said team, Epstein's responsibility goes beyond romantic notions.

With Ivan Rodriguez and Paul LoDuca still floating around the free agent troposphere, waiting for a team to rain cash on them, Varitek wasn't really in a position of strength.  Varitek will be 37 next season.  That makes him five years removed from his career high batting average, and four years removed from a twenty home-run season.  Teams are starting to run on him with more success, with his 2004-2008 CS% slightly less than his 25% career total.  The number of steals is down, but that's a function of the lack of base runners.

Varitek cracked the $10 million mark three times after his prime years.  In some sense, he received his lifetime achievement award contract.  Now the Red Sox are looking to pay a catcher.  A raise was not in the cards. 

Look around the landscape.  Teams are locking up young guys in an effort to get a discount on year 26-30 for players.  The market is changing.  Those who benefit one day can be obsolete the next day.  Right now, catchers in their decline phase aren't in demand - at least, not at $10 million.  That C isn't worth an extra $5 mill.  If it were, you could say your salary was a C-note. 

Okay fine, it was four overtimes but let's put the Utah Valley State/Chicago State game into this perspective:

Ryan Toolson 63, David Holston 41

A few scores in major college basketball from last night:

Mt St Marys 62, Quinnipiac 40

Dayton 47, St Louis 46

(24) Minnesota 59, (20) Illinois 36

Fun Friday is about my dumb ideas, and if I have none of those, it's about just plain being dumb for a day.  IJWMFTT strives to be the best at casting a critical eye on the sports landscape.  Certainly you'll begrudge me one day a week to escape.

Here are some ideas that were crazy.  Well, they were crazy because they didn't work.  But I think they could have, or maybe should have, worked:

Crazy idea: The CFL goes stateside

What was it?  The CFL made its way to the US in 1993 with the remanants of the WLAF's Sacramento Surge becoming the Gold Miners.  Baltimore, Birmingham, Las Vegas, Memphis, and Shreveport also joined the league.  Sacramento later moved to San Antonio.  These teams were initially incorporated into the league's East/West format, before trying a North/South format.

Why it failed: The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore.  The Stallions were the league's US success story.  They drew 42,000 fans on a regular basis.  They appeared in the Grey Cup game both years they were in the league - winning it in 1995.  The city was also supposed to host the 1997 title game.  With the news that the NFL had returned to Baltimore, owner Jim Speros felt he could not compete for entertainment dollars (a move to College Park to draw a regional fan base was briefly rumored, but never materialized).  The team relocated to Montreal as no viable location in the states could be found.  The other teams closed up shop as well.  These were southern cities, and the CFL tag didn't seem to inspire fans.

Why it should have worked: The league should have rebranded itself.  With a wider field, rules that encouraged throwing, and other nuances, the product had a certain level of differentiation.  The North/South format felt like AFL/NFL. 

Crazy Idea: "This is THE XF-ELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!"

What was it? A spring football league, that like the CFL, put teams in secondary markets.  They also had teams in the three biggest cities, hoping that by volume, it would work.  The coin flip was a sprint to the ball on the 50 yard line.  Punts were interesting.  There were three point conversions.  And overtime was done right.  Each team got a possession, but the second team had to score in as many downs as the first team had scored.

Why it failed: NBC broadcast the wrong game in week one.  Featuring the New York team was supposed to be a big deal.  They lost 19-0 in a terrible game.  When the game ended, the national audience got to see the end of a 32-29 game between Chicago and Orlando.  That was it.  People can talk about marketing, the link to wrestling, and the dumber things they did.  That stuff could be changed.  What couldn't be changed was the perception of 10 million fans that tuned in on week one.  The football was inferior.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Certainly that first game was.

Why it should have worked: McMahon was right.  The NFL had become an antiseptic league.  Being a co-owner, NBC was scared off by the ratings.  The league was solvent.  The secondary broadcast partners (UPN) were able to make demands, knowing that NBC was out of the game.  The NFL won't admit it, but a lot of camera angles and field level sound are XFL additions to the game.

Any others?  Disco demolition night?  The NASL?  Discuss...

It is debatable as to whether "hype week" has a real purpose.  At some point, aren't people hyped out?  Further to the point, there isn't always that chic match-up.  Such is the case this season.  People can try as they might, but the Whisenhunt angle falls flat.  Whisenhunt may have been passed over, but Mike Tomlin has a significantly better record in this small sample size.  Plus, there were Rooney Rule implications.  All things considered, this situation has worked well.

Another drawback to hype week is the extra week to analyze the game.  By the time Jaws, Hoge, Ismail, Dilfer, Faulk, Deion, Sal Pal, Mooch, Eisen, Lindsay Soto, Mary, Strong, and Michelle Tafoya have given their two cents, one feels like the game has been palyed.  And I haven't even mentioned the cavalcade from the network that will actually broadcast the game!  I once attended a Super Bowl party, and was told to shush during the commercial breaks.  The game was incidental to these people.  The commercials?  Well that is the programming I guess.

For the most part, the Super Bowl winds up being like Woodstock.  But Woodstock was awesome!?!  I'm told that the way you can tell those who were there from those who claimed to have been there is if someone says it was a giant, stinking pit of mud with bad sound, then they were probably there.  Same with the Super Bowl.  But for home dwellers, it goes a little different.  Everyone thinks they will host the Super Bowl party during the Super Bowl when something awesome happens.  Of course what winds up happening is, you clean up, wondering why you made so much dip, whilst the season premier of The Simpsons, plays in the background.

So what about the game itself?  What is the key to winning?  Well, to be cynical, it's like winning any other game.  There is a school of thought that winning means having to break tendencies.  With two weeks of film study, do something that the other team didn't see on film.  It could explain Randle-El to Ward, or "touchdown Mike Vrabel."  No team wins consistently with all trick plays in the post-season, or the regular season.

This really is like all the other games.  The team that treats it as such will win.  The team that plays like they are chasing history will never catch it.  How many teams have won this game with a "Super Duper Super Secret Super Bowl Plan?"  Did the Bears say "Let's double down on Fryar.  It's okay if Eason has time?"  Did the Ravens say, " It's kinda warm.  How about we have Trent air it out today?"  Did Parcells say, "I think we should match Kelly's no huddle with one of our own?"

Breaking tendencies has its place.  Give them the look they have seen before, and then hit them with something they haven't.  But that doesn't work unless you have initially imposed your will on the other team.  Sure Dominic Rhodes was the de facto MVP of a Super Bowl. And Dilfer did hit Brandon Stokley for a long touchdown.  While we're at it, William Perry scored a touchdown, and Stephen Baker caught a critical third down ball.  These things only happen after you establish Walter Payton, Priest Holmes/Jamal Lewis, and OJ Anderson.  In other words, they happen after you establish your tendencies.

So will win based upon my theory?  I don't know.  We will have an idea after each team has a series.  If the Cardinals feel compelled to run the ball because, the football book dictates it, the Steelers win.  If the Steelers feel that they have to play finesse defense to prevent big plays, then Kurt Warner is smart enough to exploit that.  So I'm saying that either the Cardinals or Steelers will win.  That's the kind of insight you get at IJWMFTT.