Having served as an Official Mainstream Media Sports Journalist for a long time, I can tell you that we do indeed know that all this Super Bowl coverage is overkill.

Flickr user AngieSix; Creative Commons license

No, most people wouldn’t admit that. Certainly not when they’re deciding how many people will be going to Media Day or the several press conferences each coach will endure throughout the week leading up to the Biggest of Big Games.

But deep down — yes, we know. We know Media Day has become a circus in which people writing about the spectacle now outnumber the people creating it. When MTV VJ “Downtown” Julie Brown got credentialed, Media Day officially ceased to be a useful event for Official Mainstream Media Sports Journalists.

And we know the coach’s press conferences, though giving NFL Network a bit more programming, are relatively useless. You might get one or two injury updates as a result of 15 questions all worded slightly differently.

“So, Coach, has Gronkowski’s ankle improved?”

“Well, he seemed OK yesterday, but we’re taking it day-by-day.”

“So was he able to practice?”

“Yeah, he ran some routes.”

“So is he better?”

“We really don’t …”

“Do you have before-and-after X-rays from Monday’s practice and today’s?”

“Um …”

ESPN’s Mike and Mike in the Morning addressed Gronkowski Overkill on their show yesterday morning, so you know it’s serious. But when you don’t have an injury to ask about, things get weird. You get the questions from the back-row guys with very specific feature assignments: “Coach, can you talk about how your linebackers play differently when the ball is on the left hash mark instead of the right?”

Fact is, not much changes between Wednesday and Thursday of Super Bowl week. Each team practices for the umpteenth time. Each team has known the opponent for 10 days. Each team has known for months that Madonna is performing at halftime, and contrary to what Lifton thinks, that’s not a bad thing.

(Seriously — the Rolling Stones and the Who can drag their dessicated bodies onstage to pretend they can still hit all these notes, but we’re all in a huff about a woman who dares to look good in her 50s? Oh, the horror!)

And if you’re in one of the 30 million or so households that watched last week’s games, chances are pretty good that you already know all you need to know about these teams.

What we don’t want to admit is that our target audience should be the extra tens of millions who don’t watch a lot of football during the season but will tune in Sunday. And they just need a little guide to remind them which QB dates models and which QB is the little brother of the really good QB they’ve heard about — Walter Payton or somebody?

That’s not as much fun for Official Mainstream Media Sports Journalists. We want to tell you how much this means for Eli Manning’s legacy. Or how many celebrities we spotted when some dude decided it would be fun to bring an Official Mainstream Media Sports Journalist to an Official Celebrity Super Bowl Party.

The bottom line is that it’s one game. It’s not the Olympics, where someone’s lifelong dream is realized every few minutes. It’s not the World Cup, where some team of nobodies is going to come from nowhere and surprise one of the world’s big powers in a group-stage game. It’s one game between two well-known teams and a whole lot of expensive ads, of which USA TODAY readers will select the stupidest and declare it the “winner.”

(No, I don’t know where USA TODAY gets the AdMeter people, either, but I’m guessing their TV preferences lean away from Arrested Development and toward Two and a Half Men. So maybe they get Nielsen-rating families?)

It’s a great occasion, absolutely. It might be the only thing that brings people together in this multicultural country with a lot of loud political fringe groups and poor public transportation. It would be a little hypocritical of me to enjoy the celebration of Australian culture in each year’s Australian football Grand Final and not enjoy the uniquely American Super Bowl. Some people might be a little queasy with all the military-industrial rhetoric, but we can always watch Puppy Bowl until game time if we prefer.

So please forgive Official Mainstream Media Sports Journalists if we’re fishing for angles leading up to the grand occasion. It may not lend itself to quite as many good stories as the NFL thinks. But you wouldn’t want to miss it.

It was kind of like that episode of Freaks And Geeks

I had long since repressed those traumatic memories, but they were dislodged in the wake of the Denver Broncos’ victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Wild Card game. As with me in dodge ball, no one gave Tim Tebow a chance against Pittsburgh’s famously punishing defense, as drawn up by their legendary coordinator Dick LeBeau. But as it was pointed out all last week, the Steelers’ repeatedly stacked the box with both safeties, leaving no deep coverage. While this was largely effective in stopping Denver’s excellent running game, it also left Pittsburgh’s secondary vulnerable for Denver to turn play action mid-range passes into big plays, which is exactly what happened on the first, and last, play of overtime.

Contrast that with the run of improbable come-from-behind victories Tebow during the regular season. In those games, the Broncos’ opponents followed the traditional method of protecting a late lead, which adds cornerbacks to prevent the receivers from going out of bounds and stopping the clock, and places the safeties higher up the field than usual to prevent a big play. You can give up yardage as long as they don’t get behind you and the clock keeps moving. This made no sense because Tebow is unlikely to have consistent success throwing deep. But over-the-middle passes to a wide-open receiver with room to run? No problem. This is why Tebow could look horrible for three-and-a-half quarters and look like a world-beater in the game’s late stages.

This Saturday, Tebow Time came to a crashing halt, as it did in the regular season, against the New England Patriots, whose defense this year has been a shell of what it was during their rise to greatness a decade ago. But Bill Belichick is no idiot, and his defensive scheme played into Tebow’s greatest weakness. Fifteen of the Broncos’ plays in their 45-10 loss to the Patriots went for negative yardage. What looked like repeated breakdowns of Denver’s offensive line was more likely the result of Tebow’s inability to recognize the Pats’ disguises and adjust the protection at the line of scrimmage. The Patriots showed him respect, but no mercy, proving for the second time this season that God’s favorite quarterback is no match for Satan’s favorite coach.*

If nothing else, Tebow has been fascinating to watch because he’s challenged football’s conventional wisdom about running a college offense in the National Football League. Now that there’s a significant amount of game film on what he can and do, we’ll all be watching next season to see both how teams prepare for him and how he adjust. But with his first year as a starter in the books, there is no metric that suggests that Tebow is even an NFL-caliber backup quarterback, no less a starter. His fans may point to his 7-4 record as proof that he has the intangibles of a winner, but New York Jets fans were saying the same about Mark Sanchez a year ago, and now they want to run him out of town. There’s a fine line between “poise” and “big loser.”

The beauty (or pain, depending on who you root for) of the NFL is that its parity-driven structure means that the difference between winning and losing can sometimes be the result of fluke plays. If, say, a botched snap, a wrong call by the officials, and an “immaculate reception” goes your way in a season, an otherwise 8-8 team that misses the wild card turns into 11-5 and a possible first-round bye. For example, if, in the Broncos’ 13-10 overtime win against the Chicago Bears, Marion Barber doesn’t make two Marion Barber-like mistakes, the Broncos finish 7-9, miss the playoffs, and there is no talk of divine intervention helping Tebow. If Tebow is to succeed, it should be because he realizes he was very lucky and remains dedicated to quickly improving his craft. As a neutral who enjoys watching good football, I want him to do well, but that doesn’t mean I want him anywhere near my beloved New York Giants.

Best. Day. Ever.

Speaking of which, perhaps Tim Tebow would be well served by looking closely at Eli Manning’s career. Like Tebow, his critics have suggested he’s had a sense of undeserved sense of destiny throughout his career (due to his father and brother), and whose greatest career achievement to date was more the result of a strong defense and a bit of luck than his own ability.

But beneath his goofy exterior and a persona that rivals Derek Jeter for blandness is a competitive streak, intelligence, and self-confidence that is, well, Jeter-esque. Out of character, he made headlines in the pre-season for suggesting that he should be considered among the league’s elite. That those words came after a 2010 season where he led the league in interceptions and the New York Giants failed to make the playoffs for the second consecutive year made him the subject of ridicule. It didn’t help that the off-season that saw him lose two of his favorite targets (Steve Smith and Kevin Boss) and two linemen (Shaun O’Hara and Rich Seubert).

Manning responded by proving the doubters wrong, throwing for a Giants single-season record of 4,933 yards, with nine fewer interceptions. Like Tebow, he specialized in late-game heroics, setting an NFL single-season record 15 touchdown passes in the fourth quarter. Similarly, many of those wins were also the result of Manning’s ability to pick apart a prevent defense.

The difference is that, for much of the season, Manning carried the Giants on his back, his right arm keeping them in nearly every game as their usually powerful running game stalled and their weak secondary was picked apart by Manning’s opposite quarterback.  Manning also improved as the games went on because he’s become very adept at reading defenses at the line of scrimmage and making quick decisions. Tebow, on the other hand, too often relied on his defense to keep the games close so that he could pull out those clutch victories.

The truest measure of Manning’s improved leadership isn’t that he orchestrated those comebacks, but in how he has dealt with those off-season transactions. The rebuilt offensive line struggled early, but Manning became more adept at throwing the ball away where in previous years he would have taken a sack, or worse, made a dumb throw that resulted in an interception. At tight end, rookie Jake Ballard, who rarely ran routes at Ohio State, turned in Kevin Boss-like numbers, while Smith’s replacement, Victor Cruz, a virtual rookie (he was injured for most of his first year) who was undrafted, showed big-time playmaking skills as he salsa-danced his way to a Giants-record 1,536 yards with nine touchdowns.

It’s unfair to compare Tim Tebow to Eli Manning, just as it has always been wrong to compare Eli to his Hall Of Fame-bound brother. They’re all at different stages in their careers and in different systems. But like Eli Manning in his first few years, Tebow is young and driven to become the best he can be. Proper coaching, both on the field and in the film room, could correct his deficiencies (and it helps to have John Elway right there to guide him along and maybe fix some of the flaws in his delivery). A veteran backup who’s not Brady Quinn would also be good. But that’s of little consolation to Denver fans today as they head into a long off-season.

* For the record, I care precious little about Tebow’s religious or political beliefs as they relate to his ability. I made that cheap joke mainly because it also takes out Belichick. Many athletes in all sports openly display their faith and they’re not used as a lightning rod in the national shouting match about religion. That said, Tebow’s eye black and alignment with Focus On The Family make him fair game.  In the name of discourse, please keep all discussion of Tebow’s faith out of the comments for this post. 

2006 Olympics: Are you ready for some shooting??!!

That’s biathlon. Fitness, guns and a rollicking party around the course. You’d think Americans would flock to this sport. Being popular in Europe is no longer a detriment, not with Fox and ESPN competing to broadcast every meaningful kick of a soccer ball on the continent.

But even during the Olympics, when the spotlight shines on figure skating and curling draws its cult following, biathlon is virtually invisible. All we know about the U.S. fan base is that Chicago Bulls legend Scottie Pippen showed up to check out some World Cup races last year. (The NBA’s answer to Napoleon, David Stern, may disagree, but the typical German reaction to that video would be “Who’s the guy in the middle?”)

A couple of things work against the U.S. biathlon movement. Most people tend not to live near the relative hotbeds of biathlon in this country. The World Cup races Pippen saw took place in Fort Kent, Maine, a location Smithereens fans would call miles from nowhere.

It’s also a sport that tests viewers’ attention spans. Broadcasters can hop between four-minute skating routines and two-minute ski runs with ease. Biathlon races require a bit of context to set up those dramatic moments when exhausted skiers raise their guns on the shooting range with all the pressure of last-second free throws.

(No, they don’t shoot at each other despite this great ad:)

And Americans also tend not to win biathlon races. The U.S. team is getting better — a month before the Vancouver Olympics, Tim Burke and German Andrea Henkel, the woman on the right in the Pippen video, were on the verge of ruling the biathlon world as boyfriend and girlfriend. But I can offer a first-hand perspective on how things went in the Games, having interviewed a lot of disappointed Americans on a snowbank in Whistler.

Still, Lowell Bailey is a solid ninth in the current World Cup standings, and several women have had decent results this season. And these things take time. In Whistler, I saw the USA take its first medals in Nordic combined. Maybe I’ll be standing in Sochi in 2014 with icicles forming on my hood (I never said it was easy to cover) to see Burke or Bailey break through in biathlon.

But the biggest issue for U.S. biathlon interest isn’t the fans. It’s the broadcasters. During the Olympics, American broadcasters don’t fallen in love with Germany’s Magdalena Neuner (she’s on the left in the Pippen video and the inspiration for this moderately creepy fan video) the way they fell for Nadia Comeneci in 1976. The rest of the quadrennium, Universal Sports and other U.S. networks have you covered if you want to see Lindsey Vonn and Bode Miller hit the Alpine slopes, but watching biathlon in the USA means one of two things — you’ve found a feed of Eurosport’s excellent coverage that you’re not supposed to be watching, or you’re at biathlonworld.com watching with no commentary. That’s an endeavor for hard-core nerds like me.

When fans get a chance to see biathlon, they respond. Close races get the usually cynical folks in Olympic media centers to stop and pay attention, particularly when they get to the shooting range and the race hangs on every bullet.

In person? It’s a party. Read about it or check out some video:

It’s all the color and pageantry of European soccer without the uneasy feeling that the people in the other stand might want you dead. If your kids get bored, there’s plenty of snow in which to frolic.

Realistically, it’ll take a U.S. success story to create a biathlon boom in this country. Or maybe Tim Burke can follow Apolo Ohno onto Dancing With The Stars.

But we Popdosians aren’t subject to the whims of popular taste. Maybe we can’t start an earth-shaking movement — “Mellowmas” has not yet entered the Oxford dictionary, as far as I know — but we can tune in and enjoy.

If you want get a sense of what you’ll see on Biathlon World without the commentary, watch highlights from this race in December:

The graphics make it easy to follow. To give some basics:

0:00 This is a pursuit race, which means skiers start in the same order in which they finished the sprint, which is usually a day or two earlier in a typical World Cup weekend. If you were 30 seconds behind the leader in the sprint, you’ll start 30 seconds behind the same guy in the pursuit. Notice Lowell Bailey starting fifth — he had a fantastic sprint.

0:22 The first shooting stage is prone (lying down). Sweden’s Carl Johan Bergman misses one, which means he has to ski one lap around a penalty loop. (That takes about 22-30 seconds.) Bailey knocks down all five targets but takes a while. Shooting in biathlon is sometimes a risk/reward game — you can try to mow through the targets quickly, but that increases the odds that you’ll miss and incur a penalty. Watch Norwegian great Ole Einar Bjorndaelen, who sometimes looks like he has a machine gun strapped to his back.

1:34 The leaders all shoot cleanly on the second shooting stage, also prone.

2:35 The first of two standing shoots, and again, most leaders shoot cleanly. The mild wind and the pressure weren’t affecting the leaders here.

3:30 It all comes down to the fourth and final time at the range. France’s Martin Fourcade and Bergman, who has skied quickly to make up the ground he lost on that early penalty loop, go mano-a-mano. Bergman misses twice. Fourcade obviously notices, giving a celebratory gesture as he knocks down his fifth target and skis away to a comfortable win.

Final results: Fourcade wins by 25.5 seconds. No idea why the Czech Republic’s Jaroslav Soukup gives up at the end and settles for third. Burke misses twice in the third stage and once in the fourth, finishing ninth. Bailey finally fades in the last shooting stop with three misses, finishing 13th. (Bjorndalen, meanwhile, sprayed shots all over Sweden by the looks of things, missing four out of five in the last shoot.)

The women’s races draw about as much interest as the men’s. Neuner and the hotshot German women are powerhouses — perhaps they could use an ad campaign in the USA like the Maria Sharapova ad featuring a Popdose staffer at the 0:08 mark. The Ian Anderson lookalike and actalike who spoke with me for my “biathlon party” story told me emphatically he didn’t care who was competing. Or winning. He might still be partying somewhere in Whistler Olympic Park.

Fun stuff to watch. Now if only we could convince U.S. networks to let Eurosport unblock its web streams in this country …

WAS @ PHI -8.5: This spread seems out of control to me for a divisional matchup between two teams who aren’t going anywhere.  The Eagles did a nice job of keeping themselves in the hunt with victories in their last three games, but the jig is finally up.  I don’t think they’ll bother to bring their A game to this one, which will give the Redskins a good chance to remain competitive.

SNF @ STL +10.5: St. Louis has a pretty good reason to put forth zero effort in this game (draft standing) while San Francisco has a very reason to put forth 100% effort (home-field advantages in the playoffs). So it seems like this should be a slam dunk victory for the 49ers.  But it seems too much like easy money, and with Vegas involved, there is never any such thing.

CHI @ MIN -1.5: Yet another game where both teams have little motivation to exert themselves.  I like Chicago here, because they’ve got a shot at getting back to .500, so they’ll put forth a little more effort than the hopeless Vikings.

DET @ GNB +3: I think this game will be treated much like a preseason contest between both teams, with each offense getting pulled from the field as soon as they’re looking sharp.  But Green Bay’s got a lot more depth than the Lions so I expect their second unit to have a good bit more success at putting up points.

CAR @ NOS -8: This game is impossible to pick because it all depends on what’s happening in the San Francisco game.  If the 49ers jump out to an early lead, the Saints will pack things in.  Otherwise, Brees will run roughshod over Carolina’s pathetic defense.  Based on my above pick of the Rams to keep things close, I think New Orleans will have good enough reason to leave their starters in an put up a large number of points in this one.

TEN @ HOU +2.5: Houston’s locked in as the #3 seed, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not going to want a win here.  They limped their way into the playoffs, and they’re offense needs plenty of fine-tuning, unlike many of the other playoff-bound teams.  They’re better than Tennessee, and they’ll show it here.

IND @ JAC -3.5: Another game with major draft implications, but I don’t think this one holds any surprises.  The Colts will lay down for the Jaguars and make sure that Andrew Luck is available to them come draft day.

NYJ @ MIA -3: The Jets aren’t out of things yet, but the Dolphins would love to play spoiler here and dash their playoff hopes.  This one seems like it could be very tight – even going to overtime – so getting the points is probably the safe move here.

BUF @ NEP -10: The Patriots can secure home-field advantage throughout the playoffs with a win here, and they’ll deliver.  Their offense should score about twice as many points as the Bills here, so look for a final score of about 45-28 or thereabouts.

TAM @ ATL -11.5: Tampa just wants their season to be over.  They won’t even bother showing up in this game.  Atlanta should cover easily.

BAL @ CIN +2: Baltimore is going to bring their A game, while Cincinnati is simply not in the same class.  A spread of a touchdown or more might be tempting, but this number of points simply isn’t worth it in a game that Baltimore will be trying very hard to win.

SND @ OAK -3: San Diego is out of the playoff hunt, and the Raiders will need some help from Denver, but that doesn’t mean that this won’t be a hard-fought game.  These teams HATE each other and there’s nothing the Chargers would like more than to be responsible for ending the Raiders’ season.  The Raiders’ defense has been doing their absolute best to give away games in the fourth quarter, and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to see Rivers and company engineer a late drive to steal a victory here.

KAN @ DEN -3: I think that the wheels have come off for the Broncos.  Kansas City will have the same attitude as San Diego – there’s no way they’ll like down for the Broncos here, and I think they might actually pull off the upset here.

SEA @ ARI -3: I tossed a coin here, and it came up Seattle.  So, take the points, I guess.

DAL @ NYG -3: I can’t help but believe that the Cowboys will find a way to choke this one away.  It’s in their DNA.

Here’s the computer’s picks for Week 16, for what it’s worth.

HOUSTON TEXANS at INDIANAPOLIS COLTS Computer’s Pick: Indianapolis (+6) Bet Amount: $1.80 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: Teams that break epic losing streaks often get inspired and win two in a row.  I think that will happen here.  Houston is seriously running out of gas and won’t be able to match the Colts’ intensity.

OAKLAND RAIDERS at KANSAS CITY CHIEFS Computer’s Pick: Kansas City (-2.5) Bet Amount: $17.82 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: The Raiders are engaged in a pretty epic late-season collapse, and will get their asses handed to them by a Kansas City team that is undoubtedly riding high after taking down undefeated Green Bay last week.

DENVER BRONCOS at BUFFALO BILLS Computer’s Pick: Buffalo (+3) Bet Amount: $5.23 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: I think the magic is over for Denver.  I think Buffalo will eke out a win as a home dog.

JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS at TENNESSEE TITANS Computer’s Pick: Jacksonville (+7) Bet Amount: $6.14 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: Both these teams won’t bother to show up for this game, so I think Jacksonville will be able to lock down the win against the spread after the game ends with a final score of 6-3.  I don’t really know or care who is going to actually win.

ARIZONA CARDINALS at CINCINNATI BENGALS Computer’s Pick: Arizona (+4) Bet Amount: $0.35 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: The Cardinals are looking pretty hot, but this is a tough game for them to play.  I think Cincinnati will be able to win at home by more than a single scores, so that’s who I’d take here.

MIAMI DOLPHINS at NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS Computer’s Pick: Miami (+10) Bet Amount: $83.16 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: As it did at the beginning of the year, the computer is stupidly loading up on Miami against the Patriots.  Since the computer’s big bets have been reliably awful this year, I’d go the other way and ride the Patriots.

CLEVELAND BROWNS at BALTIMORE RAVENS Computer’s Pick: Cleveland (+13) Bet Amount: $5.84 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: Can Baltimore actually cover this spread?  Yes.  Yes.  A hundred times yes.  Cleveland is going to get murdered in this game.

NEW YORK GIANTS at NEW YORK JETS Computer’s Pick: New York Giants (+3) Bet Amount: $6.57 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: I don’t see a clear winner here.  I like that the Giants are essentially getting a free home game here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they make the most of it against the slumping Jets.

MINNESOTA VIKINGS at WASHINGTON REDSKINS Computer’s Pick: Washington (-6.5) Bet Amount: $20.99 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: I can’t conceive of the Redskins beating anybody by more than a field goal, so I like the Vikings here, despite their issues.

TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS at CAROLINA PANTHERS Computer’s Pick: Tampa Bay (+7.5) Bet Amount: $6.36 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: Tampa Bay is completely mailing it in.  They won’t bother putting up much of a fight against a Carolina team that is playing for pride and actually has the ability to light up the scoreboard at times.

SAINT LOUIS RAMS at PITTSBURGH STEELERS Computer’s Pick: Pittsburgh (-16) Bet Amount: $102.04 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: I’m not sure if this spread will hold (it’s predicated on the idea that Roethlisberger will play) but even if he does, it’s way too much.  I’ll stick with my insistence that Pittsburgh simply cannot be trusted to cover large spreads, regardless of who they’re playing against.

SAN DIEGO CHARGERS at DETROIT LIONS Computer’s Pick: San Diego (+2.5) Bet Amount: $58.81 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: San Diego is muy caliente, and they’re going to be pushing really hard to claim the AFC West.  I like them a lot here.

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS at SEATTLE SEAHAWKS Computer’s Pick: Seattle (+2) Bet Amount: $6.52 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: I don’t see why this spread isn’t larger.  Seattle’s greatest strength (Marshawn Lynch) is going to be completely neutralized by San Francisco’s greatest strength (their run defense).  And all other factors point to San Francisco winning easily.  Sounds fishy to me.  I’ll be a contrarian here and take the Seahawks.

PHILADELPHIA EAGLES at DALLAS COWBOYS Computer’s Pick: Philadelphia (+1.5) Bet Amount: $7.54 (Son of Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: This game should mean a lot to both teams, but it’s pretty much the heart of choking season for the Cowboys, so I expect them to find some way to throw this game away.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the Eagles actually blow them out.

CHICAGO BEARS at GREEN BAY PACKERS Computer’s Pick: Chicago (+13) Bet Amount: $5.58 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: Teams that have long winning streaks snapped also often lose two games in a row, and with the pressure off I think Green Bay will probably phone this one in – particularly if San Francisco loses and the Packers are assured home field advantage throughout the playoffs.  I think we might see a surprise victory for the Bears here, and at the very least a cover.

ATLANTA FALCONS at NEW ORLEANS SAINTS Computer’s Pick: Atlanta (+7) Bet Amount: $1.29 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: Everyone will be hoping for a shootout to decide their fantasy football championships, and I think these teams will deliver.  Both are looking sharp and hungry for the postseason, and while it’s very unlikely that Atlanta can catch New Orleans for the division, both teams will be eager to get a win here.  It’s fully possible that the game goes down to the wire, or at least the spread portion of the game, but I still like Atlanta getting the seven points.

Wait, Popdose? The place in which they celebrate the holidays by digging up treacly Christmas songs and talking about each other’s mamas?

Yes, Popdose. The site written by people who have lives. The site read by people who don’t spend every Saturday night watching sports. The site run by people like Jeff and Jason who are far cooler than the people a typical sports writer would get to meet in real life.

And even though all of these people involved — even Lifton — are far cooler than I am, they aren’t afraid to discuss unfashionable things. I’ve spent the bulk of my sports writing career on soccer, MMA and Olympic sports, so being unfashionable suits me. While Jeff, Jason and company lament the state of an industry (music) in which “Kidz Rap” is well-financed while perfectly good bands are scraping to find money for guitar strings, I’m lamenting the state of an industry (sports/sports media) in which pundits shout at each other for hours over Tim Tebow while the inspirational people who captivate millions every four years have to do everything short of a bake sale just for the right to pursue their sports in poverty.

After all, no one said life was fair. Art imitates life. And sports imitate art. As much as we’d like to believe otherwise, sports aren’t fair, either.

Take the BCS. (Please, as Micky Dolenz might say in imitating Henny Youngman.) Every year, the college football championship formula gets its share of criticism, both just and unjust. The NCAA has never adequately explained why every other division can participate in a playoff system while the Football Bowl Subdivision (we know it as Division I-A) student-athletes are better served in a bowl system that pads a lot of wallets of people far away from college campuses. On the other hand, the sports punditocracy conveniently forgets the incoherence of the pre-BCS system, in which national champions were crowned by the whims of sports writers and coaches.

And the sports punditocracy — especially the “jockocracy,” in Howard Cosell’s words — too often raises the wrong arguments about the BCS. College linebackers-turned-TV-analysts, acting like they’re auditioning for the role of Bully #4 in an upcoming episode of One Tree Hill, complained that a bunch of computer nerds who never played the game were deciding the national champion instead of a bunch of football coaches being informed by their sports info staff on Sunday mornings that Powerhouse State actually lost late the previous evening.

So the formula was tweaked, giving the “humans” (poll voters who may or may not be taking every game into account) final say over the “computers” (automated rankings designed to take out the biases and, unlike the typical college football coach, account for every single result).

That’s why this year, Oklahoma State failed to qualify for the BCS title game despite finishing second in the computer rankings, suffering its only loss a day after a plane crash killed a couple of beloved campus leaders, and crushing everyone else in its path.

One would think Oklahoma State would have the pathos vote as well as the computer vote. Or that the human voters would decide one LSU-Alabama game was enough this year, and maybe another team deserved a shot at the mightly Louisiana school. But those who “know football” voted for Alabama because, gosh darn it, they just think Alabama’s a better team. Just like figure skating judges who think the Russians are better than the Canadians. Or boxing judges who didn’t see that American’s punch that bounced the Uzbekistan fighter off the ropes. Or dog show judges who keep picking the mop-haired poodles over the kick-ass Australian shepherds.

College football has made progress since 1990, when an 11-1-1 Colorado team that needed a questionable call to beat Notre Dame and the “fifth down” absurdity to beat Missouri inexplicably won one of the recognized polls ahead of 11-0-1 Georgia Tech. But it still combines beauty-pageant judging with big-money politics (ask Boise State). Not a recipe for fairness.

Most other sports pick a champion objectively. But are they fair?

College basketball fans think so. A 68-team tournament gives everyone a reasonable shot at the title, right. Sure, but it also means a 34-1 team that destroys every team in its path until losing at the wrong time might watch someone else win the national title. That happened my senior year at Duke, and while my classmates and I have unforgettable memories, I’m under no illusion that Duke was the best team in college basketball that year. The next year, Duke DID have the best team in college basketball, but it only made the Final Four after a referee was lenient on Christian Laettner and let him continue one of the best shooting performances ever in a college game.

Even with playoff systems that take an eternity, as in the NBA and NHL, the best teams over 82-game regular seasons often end up bounced out. Baseball now makes a mockery of its 162-game regular season with expanded playoffs in which a hot pitcher can undo six months of a great team’s work.

Tennis isn’t fair, with players forced to wear their bodies out through never-ending tournaments to climb the rankings. Boxing and mixed martial arts aren’t fair, with good fighters losing title shots if they’re perceived as dull.

We can rant and rave about all of this injustice. Some people make a good living doing just that on radio and TV.

Or we can just remember this: These are games. Outcomes aren’t predictable.

To get into some mediocre philosophy major’s hair-splitting: We can demand that sports should be just. The BCS, in which teams can do everything they’re supposed to do and still not get a shot at a championship, isn’t just. College basketball probably is — teams know their March games will matter more than their January games.

But fair? That would demand referees with superhuman infallibility. Tournament selection committees that can take raw data and weigh in any extenuating circumstances. Soccer fields with immaculate grass and no wind. Golf courses with no divots.

As the Scots said about golf: “It ain’t supposed to be fair, laddy.”

And so the sports world, like art, imitates life. That gives us plenty to talk about.

The computer has some huge bets on the way this week, but that’s kind of meaningless, because I only have $100 left of the original $1000 I invested a few years ago, so I can’t cover the bets that the computer wants to make.  I’ll push things as hard as I can for the remainder of the season with what I’ve got left, but I’m pretty pessimistic at this point and I’m not going to chase, especially when the computer wants to throw another $400 at the Eagles.  Of course, we all know that this is the point where things will turn completely around, the computer will reel off six consecutive weeks of hitting 80% of its bets, but oh well. I’ll just have to suck it up and start again next season.  Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

GREEN BAY PACKERS at DETROIT LIONS Computer’s Pick: Green Bay (-6.5) Bet Amount: $0.01 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: I’m glad that the computer is staying away from this one.  Given the struggles that Detroit had against Carolina last week, I’m not too optimistic about their chances here.  I’m hoping that we’ll get a good game here, but come on, it’s the Packers.  And it’s the Lions.  On Thanksgiving.

MIAMI DOLPHINS at DALLAS COWBOYS Computer’s Pick: Miami (+7) Bet Amount: $62.47 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: Picks like this are one of the reasons the computer is going bankrupt this season.  Miami has looked pretty sharp lately, but against decent teams they’re still outmatched.  The computer thinks that a spread of seven points is too low; that this is a trap, but I don’t.  I think that spread is pretty much exactly where it should be.

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS at BALTIMORE RAVENS Computer’s Pick: Baltimore (-3) Bet Amount: $17.81 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: It doesn’t matter how bit this bet is, really, because I’m expecting it to push.  San Francisco is headed a long way to play in this game, and both teams will be bringing everything they’ve got to the table.  It’s not very often that a football game is decided – from the beginning – by which team has the better kicker, but I think that’s the case here, and the Ravens will win by a single field goal.

ARIZONA CARDINALS at SAINT LOUIS RAMS Computer’s Pick: Arizona (+3) Bet Amount: $4.95 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: Sure, take the points.  Why not?  This game is a coin toss anyway.

BUFFALO BILLS at NEW YORK JETS Computer’s Pick: Buffalo (+8) Bet Amount: $1.83 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: Buffalo is cratering.  The Jets will be looking for revenge after embarrassing themselves against Tebow and the Broncos, and a divisional doormat is just what the doctor ordered.  Without Fred Jackson, Buffalo’s offense will stall, and it should be a relatively easy matter for the Jets to move the ball against Buffalo’s declining defense.  It’s possible we’ll see the Jets’ defense pitch a shutout in this one.

CLEVELAND BROWNS at CINCINNATI BENGALS Computer’s Pick: Cincinnati (-7.5) Bet Amount: $6.28 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: Cleveland’s offense is an abomination, but it’s hard to accept that a rookie – even one performing as well as Andy Dalton – can be trusted to cover a spread of more than a touchdown.  Regardless of their seemingly endless issues in just about every phase of the game, I like Cleveland to cover here.

HOUSTON TEXANS at JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS Computer’s Pick: Jacksonville (+3.5) Bet Amount: $19.93 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: It’s hard to know how Houston is going to react to the loss of Matt Schaub.  I don’t think they will be ready to give up on their season until they get beat soundly by a quality opponent, and Jacksonville is anything but.  For this game at least, I think the Texans will put for the extra effort and open up lanes for their running game, which should lead to a relatively low-scoring game that goes by in a flash.  Jacksonville won’t be able to put up many points so this should be a spread that Houston can cover with relative ease.

CAROLINA PANTHERS at INDIANAPOLIS COLTS Computer’s Pick: Indianapolis (+3.5) Bet Amount: $6.24 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: Carolina is due for a blowout.  Against the Colts, pretty much everyone is.

TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS at TENNESSEE TITANS Computer’s Pick: Tampa Bay (+3) Bet Amount: $4.68 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: I think Chris Johnson’s huge game two weeks ago was a fluke.  He’ll get stuffed again here, and Tennessee will have a hard time putting up many points.  I think Tampa Bay should probably win this game outright, so I’m happy that Gamblor is taking the points here.

MINNESOTA VIKINGS at ATLANTA FALCONS Computer’s Pick: Minnesota (+9.5) Bet Amount: $13.10 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: The Vikings fell flat yet again last week, and I think the energy they burned at the end of their futile comeback attempt against the Raiders won’t have come back.  Atlanta is going to want to get more wins under their belt as they chase a wild-card berth, so I don’t think they’ll treat this game lightly.  They should dominate.

CHICAGO BEARS at OAKLAND RAIDERS Computer’s Pick: Oakland (-4.5) Bet Amount: $268.02 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: A week after almost blowing a lead against a 2-7 Minnesota Vikings team that was led by a rookie quarterback and without their All-Pro running back, the Raiders are favored by 4.5 against a 7-3 Bears squad?  I know that Cutler will be sitting this game out, but this line is still goddamned insane.  And Gamblor agrees wholeheartedly.  From the look of it, Vegas is desperately trying to push money onto the Bears and that usually means one thing: a trap.  I don’t buy it, though.  I simply don’t trust the Raiders when it comes to gambling and I doubt I ever will.

WASHINGTON REDSKINS at SEATTLE SEAHAWKS Computer’s Pick: Washington (+4) Bet Amount: $9.84 (Gamblor only)

COMMENTS: Home field advantage is a huge edge for the Seahawks, and Washington will be making a long trip.  I think they’ll have a ton of problems on offense.  Seattle should be able to win this game solidly.

NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS at PHILADELPHIA EAGLES Computer’s Pick: Philadelphia (+5) Bet Amount: $387.52 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: There’s no spread on this game yet, but the computer is predicting that the Patriots will win by 12 points – almost two touchdowns.  I certainly don’t think that it’s wrong.  If I still have some money left after the Thanksgiving games, I’ll probably split it pretty evenly between this game and the Raiders game, and I won’t be all that surprised if I lose both.

DENVER BRONCOS at SAN DIEGO CHARGERS Computer’s Pick: San Diego (-6) Bet Amount: $18.70 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: Sooner or later the Denver Broncos are going to get their comeuppance.  It starts here, I think.

PITTSBURGH STEELERS at KANSAS CITY CHIEFS Computer’s Pick: Pittsburgh (-10.5) Bet Amount: $30.54 (Consensus)

COMMENTS: I have explained to my friend Gerry that you simply cannot trust the Steelers to cover a large spread.  It’s not because they’re not good enough, it’s because they’re a shady organization that shaves points.  Be on the lookout for an inexplicable turnover leading to points late in the game the provides Kansas City with a backdoor cover.

NEW YORK GIANTS at NEW ORLEANS SAINTS Computer’s Pick: New Orleans (-7) Bet Amount: $1.28 (Conflict)

COMMENTS: I can’t help but envision the Saints massacring the Giants in this game.  It’s just my gut feeling on this one.