It's interesting when you look back at all the NFL dynasties -- Packers of the 60s, Dolphins of the early 70s, Steelers of the 70s, Niners of the 80s, Cowboys of the early 90s, Broncos of the late 90s -- NONE of them lost their last Super Bowl appearance. And really, that seems to separate the dynasties from the merely great teams.

The Cowboys in the 70s lost every other Super Bowl they appeared in, so they're not a dynasty. The Redskins of the 80s and the early 90s weren't a dynasty either -- their championships were spread out over 10 seasons, and included three different starting quarterbacks. In the last 12 years, the Packers and the Rams lost their follow-up Super Bowls, though the Rams' appearances were separated by a year. If they'd been able to win back-to-back titles or even two in three years, Green Bay and St. Louis would have had legitimate claims to the title of "dynasty."

Basically, these Patriots have the chance to be the first dynasty -- and they already are a dynasty -- to lose a Super Bowl. They probably won't, because of experience, but there's a first time for everything.

Mind you, the Pats can always return to the Super Bowl in the next few years, and start a new chapter. But no dynastic NFL team has ever lost a Super Bowl and then won another title. The Dolphins in the 70s lost their first appearance, but then won two in a row. What's this say about dynasties? It says they're always capped with a W -- to date, anyway.

For the Record...

* The New England Patriots are the only NFL team to lose Super Bowls in two different helmets. No matter what happens Sunday, that'll still be true, because the Giants have the same logo they had in 2001.

* I hope to hear a "Yankees suck" cheer at University of Phoenix Stadium, even though I'm rooting for the Giants.

* Jason Kidd should be traded to the Knicks. Then he'll be the first person in American history to realize how good they had it in New Jersey.

* Roger Clemens looks more desperate and pathetic with every passing day. Now he's trying to deflect criticism of his late-career surge by comparing it to the careers of Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. I'm sure they love being lumped together with a guy who calls his ex-trainer on the phone, feigns interest in the kid's ill son, then secretly tape records the conversation, all in the unrealized hopes of getting the guy to recant his story that Clemens took steroids. Roger, the court of public opinion already made its decision: You and Floyd Landis should go bowling together.

* The Red Sox are reportedly going to wait until after the season to exercise Manny Ramirez's 2009 option ($20 million), which makes perfect sense. Last year the Sox irked Curt Schilling by waiting to see what kind of season he'd have, and so did the Yankees with Mariano Rivera, letting them play out their walk years without future job security. Both Schilling and Rivera stomped their feet, said they'd play out their last years and then test the free-agent market. So what happened? They performed like motivated pitchers playing for their next contracts, and ultimately re-upped with their respective teams.

In Ramirez's case, the Red Sox hold $20 million options on him for 2009 AND 2010. Considering Ramirez will be 37 in May of 2009, the $40 million he stands to make with Boston in those two years is much better than any long-term deal he can reasonably expect to sign somewhere else. Consider, if Ramirez replicates his un-Manny-like numbers from last year -- 20 home runs, 80 RBIs, and less than 140 games played for the second straight season -- the Red Sox won't be eager to pay $20 million to a 37-year-old slugger who plays terrible defense.

Most players would use this kind of situation as motivation, but there's no telling how Ramirez will react. Perhaps he'll sulk. Perhaps he'll ask to be traded. Or perhaps he'll realize that playing with incentive -- actually, 20 million incentives -- will bring out the best in him, and help him revert to his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers.

* Word is Hal Steinbrenner (the sane one) and Yankees GM Brian Cashman have convinced Baby 'Brenner (the smoking one) not to overpay with prospects for Johan Santana. While that's probably the wise choice, you just get the sense that Baby 'Brenner is gonna go ballistic in the press (probably on Cashman) if Santana lands in Boston or Flushing.

* Pitchers and catchers report on February 14, so wives of rabid baseball fans should expect sex, chocolate, and due dates around Thanksgiving. Let's make it a fecund year for baseball fanatics, shall we.

Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders recently crunched numbers and said the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever make the Super Bowl, and that if they beat the Patriots, it might be one of the biggest upsets in the game's history. In outlining the case for the Giants' sucking, Schatz cited such statistics as win-loss record during the regular season, turnover differential, average margin of victory, and average margin of victory in playoff games. Taken as a whole, it was a commendable effort, but with all due respect, those numbers mean little when compared with one unquantifiable factor: momentum.

There's no denying that a 10-6 team, with a -10 turnover differential, which only outscored its opponents by 22 points during the season, looks rather weak on paper. But that's taking the entire season into account; and frankly, who cares if the Giants' early-season numbers stack up poorly against the Packers and the Cowboys, whom they just beat on the road? What does it matter if the Giants gave up 76 points to the Cowboys in two regular-season games? That second game was Nov. 11, more than two months ago. What's that have to do with now? For three-quarters of last season, the Colts couldn't stop a blind nun from running off tackle. But then they (and a healthy Bob Sanders) figured it out at the most important time -- during the playoffs. So what difference did it make that they gave up 227 yards to the Broncos on Oct. 29? I know, I know: Past performance is usually a good indicator of future performance. But really, that's more applicable to stocks and sexual partners.

Statistical gurus never discuss momentum, which is understandable, since momentum can't be quantified. Then again, it can't be denied either. The Giants may have lost the Game 16 match-up against the Patriots, but really, momentum-wise, it was as good as a win, because they parlayed that confidence-building contest into three consecutive road playoff victories. The only team in NFL playoff history to win 3 road games and the Super Bowl was the Steelers two years ago. That team also struggled early in the year, and at one point were 7-5. They then won 8 games in a row to close it out.

In the last 8 games, the Giants have only lost twice -- to an emotional Redskins team playing with pride and purpose after the death of Sean Taylor, and to an undefeated Patriots team, playing with pride and purpose in its pursuit of perfection. So, do the Giants have more momentum than the Patriots right now? A stat head would probably say no, since New England has won 18 games in a row. But just look at what's happened since the Patriots and Giants met in the season finale.

New England had an off week (when Randy Moss had a rough go of it); were huge favorites to beat Jacksonville at home (but were tied with them 14-14 at the half); then were huge favorites to beat Philip Rivers's and his one ACL, won by an uninspiring 9 points, and easily could have lost if the four field-goal Chargers could have converted their turnover advantage into even one touchdown. Meanwhile, the Giants crushed Tampa on the road, beat the #1 seed Cowboys on the road, and then beat Brett Favre and the Packers in sub-human conditions in Green Bay -- after their kicker flubbed two go-ahead field goals before icing the game in overtime. The Giants come out of the NFC feeling like they could beat anybody, in any conditions, no matter how grim it looks. The Patriots? They come out of the AFC feeling like Tom Brady's foot had BETTER be OK.

Earlier this season, Patriots' victories seemed preordained. But do they feel that way now?

If the Giants win this game, it won't be an historic upset, and it won't surprise me. The only thing that would surprise me about this game is if the Giants and Eli Manning reverse course from the last two months and get blown out. You can crunch all the numbers you want, to make it sound like the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever play in a Super Bowl. But they have something impossible to quantify: momentum. Whether it's enough to overcome the Patriots, I don't know. But it's certainly enough to keep them close. And if they can do that, they'll at least prove one thing: They're not one of the worst teams to make the Super Bowl, no matter what the numbers say.

How long till an opposing team implements the Hack-a-Shaq strategy against the undefeated, foul-line inept Memphis Tigers? After yesterday's out-of-conference defeat of Gonzaga, John Calipari's team is now 19-0, and this despite shooting 58.6 percent from the charity stripe this season -- which puts them 324th out of 328 Division I teams through games of January 24. Mind you, it's not a case of one or two brick layers; the Tigers have free masons throughout their lineup, which raises questions about whether the #1 team will win tight games later in the season and whether teams should purposely start fouling this fast-paced, high-flying squad, whose biggest strength might be its transition game.

Below are the free-throw shooting percentages of the 10 Memphis players who average at least 10 minutes per game this season.


* Derrick Rose 68.0
* Chris Douglas-Roberts 65.6
* Robert Dozier 73.2
* Antonio Anderson 53.5
* Joey Dorsey 35.7
* Shawn Taggart 56.3
* Willie Kemp 64.3
* Andre Allen 55.0
* Doneal Mack 75.0
* Jeff Robinson 41.7

Those look the average grades of Florida State football players.

If you're an opposing team, why wouldn't you simply send in your end-of-the-bench guys, put Memphis in the bonus as soon as possible, then put your starters in and go from there? I mean, if the ball's ever in the hands of Anderson, Taggart, Robinson or god forbid Dorsey, who'd probably improve his percentage by drop-kicking his free throws, why wouldn't you play as aggressively as possible? Every time Joey "357" Dorsey touches the ball, he should be hit with pillow cases loaded with soap. "Oh, sorry about that, did I foul you?"

Shaquille O'Neal's inability to hit free throws at a respectable rate (52.4 percent over his career) has long caused NBA teams to foul him on purpose. Rather than give up an easy two down low, it's always been wiser to take your chances that the Diesel will miss one (or both) of his free throws. Despite this Hack-a-Shaq strategy, O'Neal has led his teams to four NBA titles, thanks in part to the complementary play of Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade. But if Bryant and Wade couldn't hit free throws either, wouldn't teams have hacked them as well?

Memphis is an exciting team, with Derrick Rose and Chris Douglas-Roberts pushing the ball down the court and pressuring the get-back abilities of opposing defenses. But when your primary ball-handlers don't even shoot 70 percent from the line, and one of your frontcourt players (Dorsey) shoots nearly twice as well from the field as he does from the line, you've got a glaring weakness that can definitely be exploited.

Is fouling on purpose unsportsmanlike? That's debatable. What's not debatable is that Memphis is a terrible free-throw shooting team, more or less from top to bottom, and that the Tigers will be hard-pressed to win close games (particularly in March) if they don't improve.

So far, Memphis has been winning by the second-highest margin of victory in the country (Kansas). The closest game they've played all season was Dec. 4 against USC, when they beat the Trojans by 4. In that game, the Tigers shot 7 of 18 from the field (38.8 percent), which was even crummy by their low standards.

In probably their biggest match-up all season, against then-#5 Georgetown, the Tigers channeled J.J. Redick, hitting 22 of 29 for an uncharacteristic 76 percent. And why'd they shoot that well? Because the vast majority of those free throws were shot by their three best free-throw shooters, at least among regulars: Dozier (6-6), Douglas-Roberts (9-12) and Rose (6-7).
(Dorsey, who had a monster game on the boards with 13 rebounds, sucked even worse than usual from the line, going 1-4.)

The Tigers next game is Wednesday against Houston, the second-best team in Conference USA. Then, down the road they play Tennessee, which is perhaps the best team, pre-tournament, which Memphis still has to face. Perhaps these teams feel capable of beating Calipari and Co. in a straight-up game. Or maybe they'll realize that Hack-a-Tiger might be the best way to slow down the country's last unbeaten team.

Perusing the monthly spending habits of Miami Heat center Shaquille O'Neal, which are outlined in fascinating detail in his recent divorce papers, I was bowled over by one extravagant figure in particular: His $24,300 monthly gasoline bill. How on God's green earth can a man spend that much scratch on go-go juice?

Let's try to put this figure in perspective. I live in Connecticut, where gas runs more than $3 a gallon. For me to spend 24K on gas, I'd have to buy 8,000 gallons of gas. Considering my truck gets about 20 miles to the gallon, I'd then have to drive 160,000 miles a month to expend that amount of fuel. Really, how is that possible? Did Shaq buy one of NASA's old Space Shuttles? Does he fill it up with rocket fuel and spend weekends at the International Space Station? I mean, $24,000 a month on gas? I'd have been less surprised to learn he spends that much on condoms.

Here's the full story of O'Neal's finances, as reported by the Palm Beach Post: "O'Neal makes a huge amount of money, $1.8 million in monthly salary, publicity contracts and returns on investments, his routine expenses total $875,015 - a month. Among them: $156,116 in mortgages on three homes (including his $20 million mansion on Miami Beach's Star Island), plus $31,299 in homeowners insurance; $3,345 in phone bills; $1,610 in lawn and pool maintenance; $12,775 for food; $10,065 in electricity, $1,495 for cable TV; $5,000 in car payments (for three cars - he owns at least twice as many); $24,300 in gas; $6,730 in dry cleaning; $17,220 in clothing; $2,305 for pets and $110,505 for vacations. Child care sets Shaq back $26,500 a month. He and Shaunie have four children, and each has a child from a previous relationship. By the way, he pays $10,000 a month in temporary child support and another 10 grand in alimony. To his credit, the big-man-in-the-middle is doing his share in helping close the giant federal deficit. The 13-page document shows he pays $5.41 million a year in federal income tax and $217,000 in taxes in states where the Heat plays road games. Property taxes cost him $903,132."

Good to see he spends a little more on child care than gas.