Wow, what a weekend. I watched 3 games, only 2 which I cared about. The first game was the Patriots-Jets. The second one was the Steelers-Jaguars match, and the third was the Dolphins-Ravens game. All three games were 1pm games on CBS. That was a major problem.

My prime game was the Pats-Jets game. I like to call it the game between the "Spy who was caught" and the "One who was not". Yeah Mangini, knowing how Belichick is, I 100% believe that he had Robert Kraft allow your team to set up extra cameras to spy on him. We may have a strong accent in Boston, but we ain't stupid!!!!!

It wasn't a question of who would win but rather by how much. The good news is that the Pats won, the Jets didn't get humiliated (hey, we have to have some compassion for the downtrodden), and no one was hurt too badly.

Since the Pats game ended early, CBS switched to one of the other 1pm games still in progress. Unfortunately, they chose the wrong game. They switched to the Steelers-Jaguars game instead of the Dolphins-Ravens game. Huh? Are CBS people complete idiots? Pats and Jets fans don't care about the Steelers-Jaguar game. In fact, outside of Mike Greenspire and a few people in Pittsburgh, no one really cares about the Steelers. (note: Mike, it was just too easy to jab you a bit)

The U.S. public has focused on two teams to watch: the Patriots to see if they can go undefeated, and the Dolphins train wreck to see if they would go winless.

What were we treated to? A boring end to the Steelers-Jaguars game. What did we miss? An exciting Miami game, and trust me, the only time you ever hear "exciting" and "Miami" in the same sentence this football season is if someone happens to be talking about the South Beach nightlife.

So, instead of watching an exciting end to the Dolphins game in regulation time and then an electrifying overtime, CBS did something really bizarre. They switched over to the Dolphins game at the beginning of overtime (minus the coin toss). In general I hate overtime games in the NFL, and I'll tell you why in a little bit.

We then watched the Ravens receive the overtime kickoff, march down the field, and then saw Matt Stover miss a long field goal.

Terrible right? Noooooooo. It was fantastic, because I wanted Miami to win so that I can stop following them this season. Why as a loyal Pats fan would I follow Miami's progress (or lack thereof)? Because it's almost as rare to see a winless team as an undefeated one.

After the missed Stover field goal, CBS cut to commercials and I waited and prayed that Miami would score. When the telecast restarted, it was like finding out that my lover had made my favorite dessert but that the dog had ate it before I got to it. The Dolphins won, but the only thing we saw was a replay of the winning touchdown. How does that happen? Aren't TV timeouts supposed to be timed to coincide with the game?.

That should never ever happen. How could CBS cut away from the game like that to show an idiotic series of commercials? The only reason I can think of is that the Patriots game did not give them enough time to show all of their ads, so they had to get them in somehow. Terrible programming. If they wanted to fit in all of their ads, they should have done it right after the Pats game and just not shown the Steelers game.

Just to let you know, I have nothing against the Steelers or the Jaguars, it's just that the Miami game was potentially historic. And anyone who watched the celebration immediately after the game-winning touchdown understands why the entire U.S. should be happy for the Dolphins. America hates losers, Americans love to root for the underdog. It's amazing to think that a professional football team with a proud tradition like the Dolphins would be reduced to tears of happiness to be 1-13. But I guess when the only other alternative was to be 0-14, then 1-13 looks pretty darn attractive.

As for the Ravens, if you thought that the team suffered a major meltdown after losing/giving away the Pats game a couple of weeks ago, well folks, every transistor and fuse that makes the Ravens run is permanently fused in a nonfunctional state for the rest of the season.

            *                                               *                                                  *

Now, it's time to talk a little about the NFL overtime format. This is a subject that gets talked about every once in a while, and this is the once in a while part.

There is no perfect football overtime rule. But if you could mix the college and NFL rules together in the right way, you'd have a winner.

The college football overtime is as follows: ball starts on the defense's 25-yard line (assuming that there are no carry-over penalties), then the team that starts with the ball tries to score. If they score, then the other team must get a turn on offense. Basically, this prevents any team from winning the overtime coin toss and kicking a 35-yard field goal on the first play to win the game. So, each team gets the same number of possessions in overtime.

The college game is kind of screwed up because it seems strange to start from your opponent's 25-yard line. The 25-yard line is too close. A kickoff would be preferable, but I'll settle for starting at the 50-yard line. Just start the ball in a place where quarterbacks can't make a fairly simple toss into the end zone to win the game.

The NFL rule is as follows: a regular kickoff is followed by sudden-death overtime.

The NFL overtime rule is the stupidest rule imaginable. It's like having a World Cup soccer game decided in overtime by telling each team that one team will have 5 successive penalty and if no one scores, then the other team gets its own set of 5 successive penalty kicks, but letting them know that it's sudden death.

I've argued this with my brother who said, "Well, one team might start the overtime on offense, but the other team's defense can always stop them."

It's true, except for one problem: it's not a level playing field. The NFL Rules Committee has done just about everything to slant the rules in favor of the offense. Don't believe me? Here's a classic example. If a ball carrier is stopped at midfield by a defender, but several of the ball carrier's teammates proceed to push him forward into the opponents' end zone, then it's a touchdown. But if that same player was hit at midfield and driven back into his own end zone, it's not a safety but rather the ball is spotted at the 50-yard line. If the ball carrier on his way into the end zone grabs a defender by the facemask and snaps the guy's neck, it's a touchdown. But if the defender had grabbed the ball carrier's facemask, then it would have been a penalty.

It's kind of like if I took you into an open field and told you that you had 5 seconds to run away before I start shooting at you with my shotgun. Would that be fair for you?

The current NFL overtime rule flies in the face of fair play. How do we know? Look at overtime games for the past 3 or 4 seasons in the NFL. What percentage of teams winning the coin toss has elected to go on defense first? I'd be shocked if the number was greater than 5%. The reason for this is obvious: because the team that starts the overtime with the ball has a clear advantage.

The NFL only has to make one small change to have a fair and equitable system. Here it is: each team must be given at least one possession of the ball. That's it. If the team that starts the overtime on offense scores on its first drive, then the other team has to be allowed one offensive drive.

The Dolphins did not win yesterday's game because the overtime rule allowed them to win it. They won the game because Ravens' kicker Matt Stover picked a bad time to miss his first overtime field goal attempt. The Dolphins could have (and should have) lost that game, and that would have occurred without their offense ever touching the ball in the overtime period.

Just because that scenario didn't unfold during the Miami-Ravens game doesn't mean that we should stop complaining about this silly NFL overtime rule.

The only consolation I have for missing the live historic ending of the Miami-Ravens game is that I will get to see another piece of history when the 14-0 Pats playing against the 1-13 Dolphins represent the largest win-loss differential in NFL history between two teams playing against each other. Let's go Pats.

I've now joined the Anthony Smith fan club. The Steelers All-Talk safety was prominently featured last week by the media who were only too happy to quote part of his "I guarantee a win over the Patriots this Sunday..." speech. But instead of being the slimy group of humans that most sportswriters have to be in order to keep a job, let's imagine that the sportswriters actually correctly and fully quoted Smith, and that was all he said. I still see no problem.

What Smith did was tell his team and others that he believes in the guys around him in the locker room. If anyone was stupid enough to believe that he was really and truly guaranteeing a win, then such a person probably also believes that Barry Sanders is getting ready to rejoin the NFL as the new featured running back for the Patriots.

When did football become so sissy that now everyone is afraid to anger anyone with ... WORDS?????? There used to be a time where football was decided by emotional guys who let it rip on and off the field. Now it seems that people who don't even play the game want to dictate every aspect of football.

Being afraid to say anything that riles the opponent has become the NFL's version of political correctness. The one thing that so many people like about football is that it's a "man's game". I don't mean that women shouldn't be included in the game, but rather that men are simple creatures (or at least more simple than women). Men like war, men like beer, men like things to be in black and white. The gray areas make men crazy. And so football has become popular because it is all about winning and losing.

For those of you who believe that old quote that, "It's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game", here's a news flash: this is 2007!!! There is not a single Patriots fan who would rather lose well than win ugly. For that matter the same applies to the Giants who have won some of the absolute ugliest games imaginable this year.

So, the NFL is a cut-and-dry type of sport (as long as the refs do their job well). But some of that clarity has faded. Instead of football players pounding their chests and bellowing out war cries prior to the game in an effort to intimidate the enemy (note: please have a mental image of Mel Gibson in "Braveheart"), it's been replaced by a more cerebral form of mental chess where players, coaches, media and the fans are looking for some tiny utterance from an opponent to stir them to victory. And if they can't find an utterance, they create one.

Don't believe me? Look at the Patriots. When was the last time you can remember that any Patriot during the Bill Belichick era has said something like Anthony Smith? Hmm... I'm drawing a blank.

The Patriots have been getting into opposing players' heads for several years now. Trust me that prior to stepping on the field, many opponents were already worried about losing. Being worried about losing is the first step to losing. Every team that the Patriots have played this year has worried about trying not to get blown out. So, the Patriots have not only played mind games with opponents, but they also dictate the rules of what can and can't be said prior to the game. Amazing.

How about the Patriots-Giants game? Sure that game isn't for another 2 weeks, but regardless of the lies that Eli Manning might tell the press about how he's not concerned about playing the Patriots, he's deathly worried that the Pats will make him look really really bad, and especially at a time where he needs to generate momentum heading into the postseason. He'll think about his horrific game at Wembley Stadium, and the doubts will wash over him like a tsunami over a sea cucumber.

Eli's only chance is to counter the Patriots' mind games. He needs to come out and issue fighting words. He needs to be a leader and rally the troops. So, let's stop bashing Anthony Smith for saying what he said. Smith did what he thought he needed to do. He spoke his mind to try and rally onwards his team. Can we blame him for that?

You Michigan football fans should also not be complaining. How is it that Anthony Smith makes his comments and people go bonkers, yet Michigan running back Mike Hart "guaranteed a victory over Notre Dame", and people thought he was courageous?

How about Terrell Owens? I've never been a supporter of his on-the-field antics, but I've never criticized him for anything he's said off the field. Without colorful personalities like that, there would be exactly one and only one day to talk about your favorite team: on the field during the game. How boring would that be? Also, isn't such taunting illegal?

Do we really want NFL players to become automatons who say trite phrases like, "We just take it one game at a time", or "They're a great team and we have to play our best game."

I'd rather hear people like Smith guarantee a win than say something like, "I hope it's a competitive game."

The only thing that Smith should have done was vow to donate a substantial amount of money to charity if his team lost to the Patriots. That's called "putting your money where your mouth is".

Folks, let's not fall into the NFL's trap of "being professional". Football is a game of emotion and heart. That is why the Dolphins still have a chance to beat the Patriots in December (of 2015). That's why the Jets beat the Steelers. If I wanted to watch a completely professional and emotionless contest, I would watch professional chess.

Do you know why the NFL has been trying to gag players? It's been trying to increase its fan base to include more women and children. This is not my opinion, but rather something that's been reported on by others. The NFL saturated the men's market years ago. And so the game has become sterile. Instead of emotional fighting words issued in rough terms by emotional players, we hear standard phrases which idiotic reporters actually record. Why record something that you've heard a million times before?

Here are some examples:  

a)      "We're not looking past our next game."

b)      "The burden is on us (a 13-0 team) and not on our opponent (a 3-10 team) to play well."

c)      "We respect those guys (the 0-13 Dolphins) a lot, because they're a really good team".

d)      "Football is played between the lines and not in the media."

By the way, if any football player truly believes that "Football is played between the lines and not in the media", then why not tell us what you truly think about the opponent, because according to those words, whatever you say "outside the lines" will not impact what goes on "within the lines".

While we're on the topic of issue fighting words, let's look at the idiocy known as the NFL Network. As the Patriots move towards taking on the Giants in the last game of the season for what could be an historic bid for the first undefeated season in 35 years (which also means the first undefeated season in the modern football era), the vast majority of you will feel some emotion akin to anger or rage as you are unable to watch the game because it will only be televised locally and on the NFL Network (note: this means that even certain areas of Massachusetts as well as most of the U.S. will be blacked out of the game unless you have NFL Network).

When the greed of the NFL prevents you from seeing that potentially historic game, try to be a little more human and a little less "professional" as you feel the same rage that our cave ancestors must have felt when the meat-laden wooly mammoth got away on a cold and hungry winter day in December. Let the NFL know what you think. Let them know that you won't play their game and say lukewarm things like, "Well it's the NFL's game and so they can televise however they choose (I'm talking about the NFL establishing the NFL Network)", or, "It's only a game", or, "Well, look at the bright side, it gives me more time to knit that gloves for my poker buddies." As the poet Dylan Thomas wrote, "Rage against the dying of the light".

Don't hate Anthony Smith for issuing fighting words, don't hate him for being human. But it's okay to hate him for not backing up his words with action. 

Bobby Petrino may very well have committed professional suicide. Let's look at what everyone has been saying. He's a professional drifter who's constantly looking for the next greener pasture. He has a great college record of 41-9, but his record as the Atlanta Falcons head coach is nothing to put on a resume.

Many people say that Petrino's record as Falcons coach should contain the "Michael Vick Asterisk". Losing Vick not just for the season, but also for a couple of years in the foreseeable future was a tough blow. But other teams have lost their starting quarterbacks and found a way to rebound.

The big question about his tenure with the Falcons is this: if Petrino is such a creative offensive guy, then how could he not retool the Falcons offense to go in another direction?

Forget that Falcons owner Arthur Blank is upset, and forget that the Falcon players are happy now. No matter how you look at it, Petrino quit. He's a shining example of another spoiled little brat who was being paid a lot and didn't honor his contract.

But why might his move to Arkansas be professional suicide?

How is he supposed to compete for blue-chip recruits? Don't think for a moment that every rival school's recruiting staff will not sit in the living room of every top recruit that Petrino wants, look the recruit and the parents in the eyes, and touch the biggest nerve that a blue-chipper's family has: Petrino's instability.

A blue-chip recruit expects that he's going to be the big man on campus, but he also knows that when he's a junior, a head coaching change could lead to a "youth movement" and his reduced playing time. The fact is that all coaches like to have "their guys" on the field, and so every recruit wants assurances that the coach who recruits him is the guy he's going to be playing for.

Therefore, the only way that Arkansas will get any blue-chip recruits in the near future is if that student has some sort of family tie with Arkansas, illegal inducements are offered, and/or there is a clear weakness at a specific position that the recruit believes would allow him to start as a true freshman.

Also, how could he quit 3 weeks before the end of the season? I find it almost impossible to believe that any recruit who Petrino approaches during the next 3 weeks will really believe him when he says, "I always finish what I start, and I can guarantee your son that I will be at Arkansas until he graduates."

Now, Petrino and Arkansas have created a bizarre situation where Arkansas now has 2 head coaches: the interim coach Reggie Herring who will lead them in their post-season bowl game, and Petrino who won't.

The NCAA should be looking into this, because it's an end-around by Arkansas to gain a recruiting edge by allowing their true head coach to get a 3-week head start in recruiting while their current coach will be leading the team in the post-season. It's double-dipping.

There is a saying that "you sow what you reap". Petrino has demonstrated that his words mean nothing, and trust me, the moment that things start to go downhill at Arkansas, fans there will be clamoring for Houston Nutt.

As for Arkansas, when he looks all of you Razorback fans in the eyes and tells you, "I'm here for life." Give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him, but don't forget that in Petrino's mind he's got more lives than a cat, so it's impossible to tell how long he's going to be living the one he signed his Arkansas contract with.

Petrino has truly created a legacy, and ironically, that legacy of not consistently being in one place is the one thing that will consistently stay with him.