Hot (and Then Not) & Week 17 Picks

The playoffs are a week away, which makes me simultaneously excited for the playoffs and disappointed that we are soon only 11 NFL games away from the end of the season.

In the past several weeks, we've heard a lot about some of the streaking teams in the NFL and how they may be the best teams in the NFL. Denver is riding a 10-game winning streak heading into Week 17 and will likely make it 11 barring an act of God when they face Kansas City. With a win, they guarantee themselves a bye week and possibly a #1 seed if Houston manages to lose.

In the NFC, Washington, Green Bay & Seattle hold the longest win streaks of teams on the precipice of the playoffs. Seattle has has one of the best statistical three-week runs in the NFL this year en route to its 4-game win streak entering its finale against St. Louis. The Seahawks have won by an AVERAGE of 50-10 in their last three games. Granted, only one of those games was against a legit opponent (San Fran), but there has to be some credit given. I expect Seattle to win in Week 17 and enter the playoffs with a 5-game streak to end the year. Washington enters Week 17 on a 6-game tear and will make the playoffs if they make it seven by beating the Cowboys on Sunday Night. Green Bay can ensure a bye by beating the Vikings.

All of this talk about "hot teams" entering the playoffs got me thinking: what's the trend of teams entering the playoffs (specifically, the teams that make the Super Bowl)? Is there a trend for teams to end the year on a long streak to make/win the Super Bowl?

I looked back at the past ten years to see how playoff teams from each conference fared at the end of the regular season to see if these long streaks carried over into January. Outside of one exception, the team who entered the playoffs on the longest winning streak has not won the Super Bowl (New England in 2003 is the only team in the past decade to have the longest win streak and win the title).

Here are some fun facts from my findings of the past 10 years:

• Out of the 10 teams with the longest streak entering the playoffs, only three of those teams (NE '03, '07 & '11) even made the Super Bowl. There's been six teams who had at least a half-season winning streak (8+ wins) who didn't make the Super Bowl, including New Orleans last year.
• Out of the 20 conference champions, only 5 (25%) had the longest win-streak among their playoff conference counterparts. That means most teams who made it to the big game weren't the hottest team entering the playoffs.
• Super Bowl winners of the past 10 years have had the following streaks to end their years: won 12 (once), won 4 (once), won 2 (three times), won 1 (three times), lost 1 (once), lost 3 (once). While it doesn't necessarily pay to have a long win-streak to end the year, it seems as though something can be made of winning in the last week.
• Not related to the win streak thing, but it should be noted that out of the past seven Super Bowls, all but one of them has had a team who played in the Wild Card round - meaning that bye weeks don't seem to matter as much lately. Let's keep that in mind, Niners fans, should the Packers hold onto their 2nd seed. The only Super Bowl in this span containing teams that had byes was Indy vs. NO.

	AFC Champ	NFC Champ	Longest Win Streak entering playoffs (each conference)
2002	Oakland (W2)	Tampa (W1)	Ten -5; NYG - 4
2003	NE (W12)	Car (W3)	NE - 12; GB - 4
2004	NE (W2)	Phil (L2)	Pitt - 14; Sea/StL/GB - 2
2005	Pitt (W4)	Sea (L1)	Wash - 5; Pitt/Den - 4
2006	Ind (W1)	Chi (L1)	SD - 10; Phil - 5
2007	NE (W16)	NYG (L1)	NE - 16; Wash - 4
2008	Pitt (W1)	Ariz (W1)	Ind - 9; Atl - 3
2009	Ind (L2)	NO (L3)	SD - 11; Dal - 3
2010	Pitt (W2)	GB (W2)	NE - 8; GB - 2
2011	NE (W8)	NYG (W2)	NE - 8; NO - 8
2012	?	?	Den - 10; Wash 6/GB & Sea 4 (entering Week 17)

So what does this data tell us? I believe it's easy for us to go with what we've seen most recently and make a blanket judgment on what will happen in the playoffs, but recent history shows that teams riding long winning streaks have little-to-no-advantage entering the playoffs. And it's important to keep in mind that many of these teams with the longer streaks (Pitt, both SDs, NE in '10) lost home games in the playoffs.

Before you go and place Denver into the Super Bowl, be wary of the potential obstacles and history they face when entering the playoffs.

Week 17 Picks

I honestly don't like much that's on the menu. 

For some reason, I'm believing in Dallas (+3.5) beating Washington this week. I'm also rooting on my Dallas 75/1 bet to win the Super Bowl to have some life entering January.

The other games that have an effect on the playoffs (GB -3.5 at Min, Chi -3 at Det), I have no read on.

KC +16 at Denver seems tempting - I don't think Denver is going to run up the score. Miami +10 seems like a good bet too - Belichick will likely bench starters at a certain point of their Week 17 game when they realize that they will not get a first-round bye. I don't think he cares if they fall to the fourth seed (in that spot, they'd face Indy, who they romped earlier this year) if they lost.

Tune in next week as I go to Vegas for my 30th birthday and make some bets while I'm there. I'll look to preview the NFL playoffs tomorrow night. I'm willing to bet one team from the Wild Card round will make the Super Bowl - just a matter of who.

A Letter to Santa - from a nearly 30-year old man

Dear Santa,

Now that your trek around the world has commenced, I'm sure you'll be a little too busy to read this, but whatever. Get around to it next week or beginning of 2013 when you've had a few days to rest off those billions of glasses of milk and even more billions of cookies. Good God, I hope you're not lactose intolerant. I feel sorry for Mrs. Claus.

Anyways...

I wanted to write to you today to let you know about a part of me that's been missing in my Christmases for many years now (perhaps 10 years, maybe a little less).

These people (and many additions since) are among many reasons why I will always love Christmas

It's not a loss of loving the holiday - I still love everything that comes from Christmas. The parties, people getting together, enjoying time with both sides of my family (I'm a lucky man to be able to say this) as well as new family I've been accepted into from my girlfriend's side.

I guess the part of Christmas that I haven't been able to feel in a while is the feeling of innocence, where your existence was never questioned, even though there were plenty of signs that pointed to Papa and Mama Claus living inside my home. While I didn't recognize it when I was younger, my dad's handwriting on a chalkboard that we got for a Christmas gift sticks out to me much later in life.

I miss the being young part, not being able to sleep till later at night because I was so excited to wake up to Christmas gifts. I'd always be the one who woke everyone up - my parents, my sister and brother.

Now? I go to bed my normal time on Christmas and then we all wake up when we feel like it. Not at the crack of dawn like when we were kids. Now, a little extra sleep is what I look forward to on Christmas, not the gifts.

Another group of people I'll always try to get together with on Christmases

Maybe I need to experience Christmas from a parent's point-of-view, where they get to experience the joys of their kids as they tear through their carefully wrapped presents (editor's note: if it was up to me, I'd continue to wrap my future kids gifts in newspaper, as you've seen on FB pictures of mine before).

Don't get me wrong Santa. I still believe in the idea of you, or at least the positive aspects that you bring to the table. Your jolly spirit brings hope and smiles to children around the world. While your shopping mall impersonators may not do you justice, the fact that kids wait in line to see you for hours tells you just how much they love the idea of you.

The idea of believing in something or someone (or in my case, the lack thereof) is perhaps what slowly but surely faded my kid-like enthusiasm for Christmas.

In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the spirit of the holiday in other ways. I'll make sure to note the looks on my little cousin's faces when they open their gifts to soak in how I used to react to Christmases past.

Take care of yourself, stay in shape, and make sure not to pass too much gas in front of Mrs. Claus - she doesn't deserve that punishment.





All my best,

Brian

Week 16 & Big Props to Calvin Johnson

So much for Madden jinxes....

Congrats to Calvin Johnson on breaking my favorite wide receiver's receiving yards in a season - surprised Jerry Rice's record hasn't been broken with how pass-friendly the league has gotten. The only suspense left with him is whether he will get 2,000 yards (needs 108 yards), which with how he has been playing (and how little Detroit has to play for), doesn't seem all that suspenseful. I see him blowing by this record and getting up to about 2,050 yards, setting a record that he (and he alone) will have fun trying to chase for the next 5-10 years.

Also a big congrats to Adrian Peterson, who is within sniffing range of the rushing record thanks to his 212 yard performance in Week 15. He needs 294 yards in his last two games (against Houston & Green Bay) to top Eric Dickerson's 2105 yards, a record set almost 30 years ago. I'd love to see him get it - as far as watching RBs go, Peterson is probably my favorite one to watch (except when he's facing the Niners).

Anywho, onto Week 16 Picks:

Jax +14.5, Phil +6.5, Dal -2.5, SF +1.5

Considering: Ten +12.5, Min +7.5, Cin/Pitt Under 41.5

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Week 15 NFL & Y2K update for AP & Megatron

To those that enjoy my writings (sports, gambling, life), I apologize for not writing as much lately. I'll try starting up more in 2013.

An update from last week's blog

Countdown to Y2K - 3 games left:

Adrian Peterson

Season: 1600 yards, 265 carries (6.0 yards/carry), 10 TDs
Last week: 31 carries, 154 yards

Needs: 400 yards in 3 games (133.3/game)

Opponents: at St. Louis (allows /game), at Houston ( /game), vs. Green Bay ( /game)

Will he get 2K yards? Yes, 2022

Calvin Johnson

Season: 96 catches, 1546 yards (16.1/catch), 5 TDs

Last Week: 10 catches, 118 yards

Needs: 454 yards in 3 games (151.3/game)

Opponents: at Arizona (allows 197 passing yards/game), vs. Atlanta (234/game), vs Chicago (205/game)

Will he get 2K yards? No, just short, 1944

Onward to Week 15...

Bets for Sunday:

Atl -1.5 - Falcons not getting the respect they should at home. The Giants' road reputation is part of this line. Atlanta was sleepwalking through the Carolina game and got the wake-up call they needed before the playoffs.

Balt +3 - I know Peyton has been leading the Broncos to their highest levels since Elway, but a letdown is inevitable. Flacco plays well at home. Without Cam Cameron as their offensive coordinator, I expect the Ravens to unleash Ray Rice to his full potential.

Ariz +6.5 - Arizona got waxed last week. Detroit lost their fifth straight, but not as bad as the Cardinals did. This play is pure motivation - Arizona has the only motivation in this game (eager to bounce back from such a shellacking). Meanwhile, the Lions were expected to contend for the playoffs and are long past that goal. It's easy to get up for a road night game against the Packers - I doubt their focus will be as sharp (as if their focus has been sharp to begin with) as Arizona's.

Buf +4.5 - Seattle's best game was last week - they could do nothing wrong. However, they are not the same team on the road. Even though this is technically not Buffalo's stadium (more of a neutral site game), the NFL and I consider it a Seattle road game. A letdown is coming, especially with a big matchup against the Niners coming up next week.

Considering...Houston -10, KC +3, SF +4.5/5

The Heisman Trophy - A Classic Example of GroupThink

If you give two damns about college football, you'll know what I'm talking about in regards to this title.

Hell, you see a lot of this in your daily lives - people being influenced by the groups around them. It may be a decision that the person in question doesn't really believe in but they make it anyways - at the risk of looking like a dissenter. No one wants to be cast as the outsider who doesn't believe what his or her group is thinking.

And here we are, the topic of conversation: The Heisman Trophy.

I never understood why the Heisman Trophy was so popular - still don't. After all, how often does "the most outstanding collegiate football player" (which is the definition of the Heisman winner) actually win the award? I guess you have to define "outstanding".

Is it "most outstanding" to win a high profile game against Alabama, run up your stats against inferior competition, and struggle against other teams who are considered high profile (LSU/Florida)? If so, the projected winner Johnny Manziel is your guy.

Is it "most outstanding" to have your team go 12-0 and advance to the BCS championship game as you lead your defense with your tremendous play to the second-best scoring average in college? If so, Manti Te'o is your guy.

Or is it "most outstanding" to be the leader of an offense who scored 37 TDs (passing & rushing) and was a bad game against Baylor away from being in the championship game against Notre Dame? If so, Collin Klein is your guy.

Ever since Manzeil's Texas A&M squad beat Alabama last month, he's been all but enshrined as the 2012 Heisman winner. It's as if his mediocre games against other SEC squads (LSU/Florida) didn't matter or didn't count.

On the opposite end, Klein was the odds-on favorite for a while, and with good reason. A few games away from perfection, Kansas State's loss against Baylor pushed Klein down the Heisman stairs, as if what he did to tear defenses up before then didn't matter one lick.

Te'o is the only guy on an undefeated team in the running, and has been a great player in his own right.

But are any of these guys really the "most outstanding" or are these guys (especially Manziel) the products of "groupthink"?

After all, ESPN and other media outlets shove these guys (like Johnny Football) down your throats, making you believe that the only game he played was against Alabama. And don't get me wrong - he did excellent in that game. But is one game worth a Heisman? It is to the voters, who are suckers to what they've seen most recently, which apparently is the new definition for "most outstanding".

If we're looking at most outstanding, shouldn't we look at what Marquis Lee did for USC? Or does his performance mean nothing because he played on an under-achieving team that was penciled in for a BCS bowl before the season started?

If I were going to vote strictly on the final three candidates, I'd probably go Klein, Te'o and then Manziel. Klein shouldn't be penalized for losing one game (hell, Manziel's squad lost two).

Yards 2K: Megatron & All-Day Approaching Two Grand Yards - Plus Week 14 NFL

If you pay close attention to the total yards of certain players, odds are you probably have them as a starter in your fantasy league.

I, however, own neither Calvin Johnson nor Adrian Peterson in any of my leagues, although I did try to make a trade for AP in my keeper league. I didn't get the owner to pull the trigger on the deal (thanks a lot Craig), but that hasn't stopped me from paying attention to what he has been doing following his torn ACL & MCL almost 12 months ago.

An injury that usually takes a season or two to shake some rust & rehab, Peterson is having the best season of his career (234 carries, 1446 yards, 8 touchdowns). His average of 6.2 yards per carry is higher than his quarterback Christian Ponder's average yards per attempt (6.0), which is amazing. If he is to average this pace the rest of the year (120.5 yards/game), we're looking at 1928 yards - so to say he could get 2,000 yards isn't out of the question.

In regards to Calvin Johnson, his stats have been just as gaudy. Megatron has 86 catches for 1428 yards (119 yards/game) and 5 touchdowns. Funny - a lot of annoying fantasy owners were complaining that he was having a bad season about five or six weeks back. If Calvin continues his pace, he will set an NFL-record at 1904 yards (Jerry Rice got 1848 yards in 1995). Again, he has a good chance of 2000 this year, especially with how bad the Lions' season is going and this will likely be the only thing they'll have to play for. (The same can be said for Adrian if the Vikings continue to fade out).

The question is - if both guys reach the mark, whose 2K season would be more impressive? A case can be made for both - Adrian having a career year after suffering his terrible CL injuries and running this well despite teams being able to key in on him since the Vikings have an average QB.

However, if you make me choose between the two, I'd go with Megatron's season. Anytime you break an NFL record, I think that has to be considered a tiebreaker that decides all tiebreakers. Either way though, all those numbers will result in no playoff appearances - unless of course you're owning these guys in fantasy football. In that case, good luck this week.

I say Peterson runs for 130 yards and a TD and Calvin goes for 125 and a TD against the Packers.

Other Week 14 Predictions

Min +3 vs. Chicago - Minnesota got crushed by the Bears a few weeks back, but I'm really high on them this week. I think the Bears have peaked this year - they've lost 3 of 4 (all to likely playoff teams) ever since their miraculous defensive TD onslaught dried out. I think you'll see a heavy dose of Peterson, about 30 carries - 24-17 Vikings - they don't need Harvin here.

NE -3.5 vs. Houston - This is as balanced as NE has been in a while - great passing game as always, solid running game and an opportunistic defense this year (24 turnovers forced, best in the league). I think Houston will lose some of their edge given their 11-1 record, and they haven't played as good lately as their record would indicate. I'll take New England here 30-17.

Other Potential Bets:

Ten +5.5, Buf -3, Dal +3


Good luck this week in your fantasy playoffs and good luck to your teams this week.

NFL Week 13

Lucky number 13.

Week 13 is about the time where the season starts winding down. Some teams have their eye on a bye, others are battling for a chance at the playoffs, and others are, well, Kansas City, Philadelphia & Jacksonville.

Also, if you're lucky, you're competing for a spot in a fantasy football playoff in one of your eight leagues. Lots to look forward to this week in that regard.

I'll approach this week a little differently - going with games I won't touch, games I am considering & games I will bet.

MC Hammer Games (Can't Touch Them)

Dal -10.5 vs. Phil (may bet the total, can't bet the side)
Cle -1.5 at Oak
NYJ -4.5 vs. Ariz (lean Ariz but too hard to gauge this one)
Buf -6 vs. Jax (Jax best efforts have come on the road, still can't bet this though)
Cin -1.5 at SD
Car -3 at KC
SF -7 at StL
Pitt -8 vs. Balt
Hou -6.5 at Ten
Cle -1.5 at Oak

Christian Pondering 

Min +8 at GB (I think Min keeps this within a score)
Sea +3.5 at Chi (Gonna be a defensive battle - in these case I usually like the points)
Mia +7.5 vs. NE (likely to pass on this, but this one seems deceiving)

Locking In
Den -7 vs TB (seems like a lot, but TB can't defend the pass)
Det -5 vs. Ind (fool's gold game of the week - I expect Detroit to win by double digits)


Good luck in your picks, fantasy teams and real teams. Have a great start to your Decembers.

NFL Week 12

As many of you have already read many times, I went to a Bears game for the second week in a row. Like the week before, I witnessed a pathetic Bears offense and eventual loss - combined losses to Houston & San Francisco by a 42-10 margin.

I promise to all Bears fans that I will not attend any more of their games this year, as I have witnessed 67% of their losses. Do I think they'll bounce back this week? Yes I do. Will I bet it? No I won't. Should I keep asking myself questions and then answering them? I think I should stop.

With only 12 games on Sunday and a dud of a game on Monday, there's not much on the slate that catches my eye. I'll likely be able to catch some/all of the Saints/49ers game, which I believe is the clear afternoon game of the day (Packers at Giants at night is the clear game of the day).

Thoughts on each game:

Oakland +8 at Cincy: Oakland fits the system here - blowout losses against the spread in their last three games & Cincy w/ blowout wins against the spread in their last two. Likely bet on Oakland, even though I picked Cincy in a couple of survivor pools.

Pitt -1.5 at Cle: I like Cleveland here. One of those 2-8 records that really doesn't tell the story on how competitive they've been this year. Probably won't bet it, but it'll likely be Cleveland or nothing here.

Buf +3 at Indy: This is the Fool's Gold Play of the week. Everyone loves Indy here, but they have no defense and I believe Buffalo will be able to move the ball well on the ground against them (Indy allows 4.7 yards/carry - 4th worst - while Spiller leads the league w/ 6.6 yards/carry). Indy is not as good as their 6-4 shows. Buffalo will be a bet

Denver -10.5 at KC: For me here, it's either KC +10.5 or no play. Divisional rivalry game - you can usually throw records out the window. KC sprung an upset last year against GB in a similar spot of the year - be careful backing Denver here.

Ten -4 at Jax: MC Hammer Game of the Week. As in, I can't touch this one on either end. No way can I lay points with Tennessee on the road, but no way I can bet on Jacksonville (again) at home, where they've lost each game by double digits.

Atl -1 at TB: Should be the best of the Noon time games. A Tampa win here could put them in good position for a playoff push for the rest of the year. No leans here.

Sea -3 at Mia: Mia fits the system of a team who hasn't covered in three straight. Likely to take them here. I don't think Seattle has earned the right to be road favorites yet.

Balt (pick'em) at SD: I already bet SD here. Great spot for them (or at least great spot to fade Baltimore). Ravens are in the middle of a Pittsburgh sandwich on their schedule and in the middle is a game thousands of miles away. Big let down spot here.

SF -1 at NO: My only worry here is Kaepernick having a rough go in his first road start in what may be the noisiest stadium in the league, but overall, I believe San Fran should be able to move the ball consistently and slow down NO enough to take this one. May bet San Fran. System play here in effect with NO winning three straight against the spread (which means fade them).

StL +1 at Ariz: Another MC Hammer Game. Arizona hasn't won since starting 4-0. I think they win here, but I sure as hell won't bet on it.

GB +2.5 at NYG: With public perception on the Giants being as low as its been this year since their opener against the Cowboys, this should be a good time to back them, especially after a bye week.

Car -2.5 at Phil: Another ugly game. Can't believe Carolina is a road favorite here, but find it hard to trust Philly. At all. No bet.



Hope everyone had a great Turkey Day. Have a good weekend.

San Franchised - Jen's 30th Bday in Words & Pics

On the Golden Gate w/ my Girl of Gold

Good morning y'all.

So you're probably wondering how Jen's birthday trip to San Fran was...What's that, you caught all of our pictures and statuses on Facebook? Well...uhm....read this anyways.

Actually, there's a lot more to our trip than what was mentioned on the incessant messages, the latter of which were not replied to for the simple fact that the Niners absolutely Pwned the Bears on Monday Night Football.

(As I was waiting to get me and Jen some In-N-Out Burger, I overheard some idiot Bears fan backing out of a bet he made with a 49ers friend of his which would require him to shave his head since the Bears lost. I absolutely hate...HATE...when people back out of bets - more on In-N-Out later).

Happy 30th to Jen!

Here's some randomness from the trip:

The Full House houses (we think)

1. Planes, Trains, Automobiles...and many more forms of transportation were taken on our trip. Starting from our flight to San Francisco, here's how our daily transportation went:
   
   Saturday: Car to Airport, Plane, Shuttle Bus
   Sunday: Walk to Golden Gate (about a 3-to-4 mile walk from our place), Taxi (including a free ride down crookedest street of Lombard Street), Boat to Alcatraz
   Monday: Walk through Lombard Street, Trolley to Chinatown, Taxi to the Painted Ladies, Bus to the Full House houses and three more bus rides, including a round-trip to/from the Niners game
   Tuesday: Shuttle, plane, car back to our Chi-town palace.
   
   Needless to say, we made the most out of every type of available transportation in the past four days.
   
2. Did You Know....That Interstate 80 ends in San Francisco? It feels like I-80 runs through every major city. I wonder how long it would take to drive from one end to the other.
   
3. It feels like big upsets in sports occur whenever I'm on vacation and I can't watch them. Oregon loses to Stanford (which I heard the end to in the shuttlebus radio), Baylor destroys Kansas State, which moves Notre Dame to the #1 spot for the first time in 400 years*. I'm not sure which upset I'm more surprised with, but anyone who watches college football knows that November is a great month for these upsets of previously unbeaten teams. It's so so hard to play a great game for all 12/13 games before the Bowl season comes around. Even though Matt Barkley is out this week, I wouldn't be shocked if Notre Dame lost this week - just so hard to win week in/week out.
   
   *slight exaggeration
4. Jen had a great birthday trip here, except...for her experience at Candlestick. And no, I'm not just talking about the drubbing that her Bears took. I was not aware of the Stick's hostile treatment of visiting fans until earlier this year when reading about some Saints' fans experiencing some harassing douchebags. When she went to go get some food during the game, Jen experienced some of this as she was waiting in line and was right near some idiots who were fighting. Also, some guy was giving her a hard time for wearing her Peppers jersey and was questioning her knowledge of what the GSH initials were in reference to (she correctly said George Halas, while the idiot thought it may have been for Gale Sayers).
   
   I know all teams have their share of assholes at games, but I felt bad that Jen had to experience this, especially with me not being there at the time to help her out of the situation.
5. As always, the best parts of any trip are the ones you don't expect or plan...and this trip was no exception. It's hard for us to determine what spontaneous moment we liked the best from our trip. There was the moment where a homeless guy scared the crap out of Jen by hiding behind a tree branch full of leaves that he was holding, only to pop out and scare her. There was also our cab driver who was a delight and stopped our taxi meter about 10 minutes before we got out of the cab - during that time, he drove us down the crooked part of Lombard Street (the crookedest street in the country/world). If you have the chance to go to San Fran, you should see this street.



The cheerleaders came by to say Hi (and then left really quick after that)

6. People watching at Monday Night Football. Our great seats at the game allowed us to see a few celebrities walking the sidelines before the game. Among them were Jeremy Piven (actor), Drew Rosenhaus (NFL Super Agent - think new age version of Jerry Maguire) & the ESPN crew (Trent Dilfer and old 49er Steve Young among them). Oh yeah, and there were the cheerleaders dancing in front of us. Yeahhhhh...
   
   
7. San Fran is so damn expensive. It's not normal to want to go back to Chicago because the prices are cheaper, but that's the case when comparing the Gold Rush city to the Windy one. It felt like everything was Chicago prices multiplied by an additional 20%. I'd love to live in the city if it wasn't for the damn prices.
8. You know you're a fatass...when you're charging Diet Cokes that you are buying from a vending machine at your hotel. I can't believe my first ever use of EasyPass was to buy cold carbonated beverages for me and Jen from a Coke machine. I can hear all of you shaking your head...and I don't blame you.
9. No matter whether Cutler played or not, the Bears would not have won the game we went to. If you're not a football fan, you may not know Jay Cutler (Chicago Bears starter) missed his first game of the year due to a concussion, leaving them with backup Jason Campbell to face a San Francisco 49ers defense whose mouth was foaming at the possibility of facing the Bears' weak offensive front and slow-footed backup. Cutler would have done better (I hope), but he hasn't really done anything this year to make me think he would have been able to match Colin Kaepernick's offensive output.



Jen trying not to show her disappointed face

10. If you're a fan of historical stuff, there's no question that you should visit Alcatraz. I believe Jen's favorite site on the trip was visiting Golden Gate Bridge, which is an excellent choice and a must-do for anyone visiting the city. However, the one thing I didn't do on my trip in January was the one big thing missing from my San Francisco experience - visiting Alcatraz. Getting to hear the history of the prison, including how the US government helped form the island into an inescapable (supposedly) fortress, was an amazing story. Hearing of all the escape stories from the island made me realize just how clever criminals can be - if only they applied that same reasoning and intelligence in the real world as upright citizens. I read the book about some of these escapes on the flight home - loved it. As far as anyone knows, no one has ever successfully escaped Alcatraz (many have drowned or died from hypothermia since the San Francisco Bay are so cold - some folks were never found and are assumed dead).



Fitting location for this Alcatraz Pic

11. In-N-Out Burger was ok...but definitely not better than Five Guys. Yeah, I said it. Me and Jen both devoured our double double's, don't get me wrong. They just weren't the high quality burger that we've grown to love from Five Guys. If you disagree, you are wrong. Way way wrong.

NFL Week 11

NFL season is halfway over - I know many women who lost their boyfriends/husbands to the season as they always do.

I don't remember a year recently where the playoff picture was more clear this early in the season, at least in the AFC.

Take a look at the standings and you'll see a large gap with teams. Every current playoff team in the AFC (if the playoffs started today) has 6 or more wins, while every non-playoff team has 4 or less. Can one of these 4-5 teams come up and take a playoff berth away from one of these current 6+ win teams? Yeah - I don't think the Colts are as good as their 6-3 record shows. And if Big Ben misses a long period of time with the Steelers, they may struggle to get to 9/10 wins, especially with how much they've relied on the pass (not what you'd expect from the Steelers (I do like their chances this week though). My best shot of an AFC team to rise from 4-5 to make a run: Cincy.

NFC is a little more balanced, with eight teams above .500. If Cutler misses significant time, the Bears could be a team in free fall. Their offense hasn't really been stellar since their Week 5 win at Jacksonville - remember that the game against Tennessee where they dropped 51 was more special teams/defense than anything. They have broken the 300+ yard mark in less than half their games this year. Granted, their defense has been amazing, but it's really hard to rely on pick-6s and special team returns when you start facing the best teams in the league. I think Green Bay is going to take the NFC Central. I say the Bears hold onto the Wild Card.

Oh yeah, did I mention I'm going to a game this weekend? A prime-time one in fact. Bears/Niners end what promises to be an exciting Week 11, which I will be spending in the beautiful city of San Francisco w/ my beautiful girlfriend.

Only problem is that the game has lost some of its luster thanks to (1) both starting QBs potentially missing the game due to concussions suffered in Week 10, (2) Bears offense laying a stinker and losing 10-3 against Houston, (3) 49ers tying against the Rams, which feels like a loss in my opinion. The Bears' loss isn't a huge surprise (although I didn't think they'd look that sloppy - the weather didn't help), but the 49ers not beating the Rams was.

I'm looking for the Bears to lose a lower scoring game - 17-10 seems to fit. Only way Bears win against an elite defense like this is if they can score a TD or two on defense/special teams. Otherwise, I think Campbell is in for a long night against Willis, Bowman and the rest of the Niners wrecking crew.

Picks for Week 11:

NE -9 vs Indy - already booked. Indy is Fool's Gold. Not as good as their record. Patriots will roll.

Cle +7.5 at Dallas - already booked. Seems like an over-inflation based on Dallas winning last week. I expect a close game, maybe even a Cleveland win. Very scrappy team. Also, Dallas is too inconsistent to spot them this many points.

SD +7.5 at Denver - Division rivalry match-up - always hard to take this many points in a game like this. I expect San Diego's best effort here, with a 30-40% shot of an upset.

Pitt +3.5 vs. Balt - This line shifted almost a full touchdown w/ Big Ben's injury. I think giving Leftwich a full week of practice will allow the Steelers to not only stay competitive vs. their division rival, but also score the victory.



Good luck to everyone

Ties Suck

(Article I wrote for my fantasy football league)

I went to the Bears game and was watching the end of the 49ers/Rams game on my buddy's cell phone (he has Sunday NFL Ticket on his phone). Instead of watching the end of what was expected to be an easy win over an inferior opponent, I actually had to root for a tie as Bradford had the ball with less than two minutes in overtime.

Fortunately (I guess), the Niners didn't lose the game. But they didn't win it either. A tie? A tie?

Yes, a mother f'in tie.

Ties of any sort, of any kind, totally suck.

Want proof? Guys take ties off at weddings once they don't have to wear them anymore. They're restricting. Sure, your girl likes them, but they suck.

Need sports proof? College football outlawed ties when they instituted their overtime system almost 20 years ago. Likewise, hockey realized that people don't want to see ties, so in the regular season, if there is no score in the 5-minute overtime, there is a shootout.

Surprisingly, the NFL is the last sport that counts in America (sorry all other sports not named baseball, football, basketball and hockey) that has a possibility (albeit a very minute one) of there being no victor at the end of the day.

How do soccer fans do it in Europe? 1-1 draw. Scoreless draw? Even worse. (Any soccer fans here, I don't need a lecture on how I should appreciate the sport - it's boring.)

In my first competitive fantasy football money league, I was in a league where there were no fractions of points, so there were chances of getting ties in games, as opposed to the decimal system which makes it very difficult. In that rough season, I started the year with 10 straight non-winning weeks, including two (Yes, TWO) ties. When you tie and your team sucks, you might as well have lost the game.

When your team is good and it ties, you still have that "ehh" feeling.

No one should want a tie or root for one. If I ever tie in this league, I may bust out a few dozen F-bombs.

Week 10 NFL

I've procrastinated on my NFL betting blog, so I'll just go through all of my picks individually and say which ones I plan on betting:

Ind -3 at Jax - Took Jax - thought it would be a trap game for Indy. Wrong.

NYG -4 at Cin - May bet Cincy +4. This goes off of my betting system (Cincy hasn't covered in three straight games). Also, I think Cincy can take advantage of an over-rated NYG defense (NYG allows 6.1 yards per play - tied for fifth worst in the league. Bottom 5 in passing yards allowed/bottom 10 in rush yards allowed).

Ten +6 at Mia - Lean Miami (not sure how rusty Locker will be) but not going to bet this either way.

Det -2 at Min - Detroit has covered in four straight games, Minnesota has failed to cover in four straight. System play is Min +2.

Buf +11 at NE - Lean Buf +11. I think New England may relax a little against Buffalo, who is capable of scoring in bunches like NE. The Pats haven't covered their previous double digit spreads at home this year (lost straight up to Arizona and squeaked by NYJ in overtime).

Atl -2.5 at NO - I lean Atlanta -2.5 here. New Orleans was fortunate to escape their MNF game with a win (allowing only 6 points in 5 defensive red zone opportunities versus Philly). Their defense is horrible. Atlanta has something to prove still despite their perfect record.

SD +3 at TB - I lean SD +3 here. System play based on TB covering last two games by average of 14+. San Diego should be able to take advantage of TB's weak secondary (allowing 3rd-worst 7.5 yards/pass play).

Den -4 at Car - Ultimate trap/fool's gold game here. Denver's been rolling (three straight covers), which is exactly why this is a good time to fade them, especially with an important divisional game coming up. Carolina coming off of a couple decent performances (almost beat Chicago, beat down Washington). Should be a field goal game. Fool's Gold Pick: Car +4

Oak +7.5 at Balt - Lean Baltimore here, but you never know what kind of effort you'll get from Oakland. In year's past, this is a spot that Oakland comes up with a straight up win - wouldn't be shocked if they did.

NYJ +6 at Sea - I think the Jets will cover and have a good shot at winning. Rex Ryan has had a couple of weeks to prepare for a rookie QB. Seattle may win, but 6 points is too much.

Dal -1.5 at Phil - No touch game here. I'd lean Phil based on the no-covers in three straight system, but for this game, I don't want to test that out. Each team likes to shoot itself in the foot - hard to bet on teams like that.

Stl +11.5 at SF - SF has been a money machine at home in Harbaugh's stint w/ SF, but something tells me to lean St Louis here. System play here would be StL losing by average of 14+ in last two games. I think Jeff Fisher will have his team well-prepared after the bye.

Hou +1.5 at Chi - Liking Houston here. Only way Bears can win here IMO is to force several turnovers, which Houston has avoided well this year. Houston's D-Line vs. Bears O-Line will decide the game. I think this is a low-scoring game (17-13), with Houston winning. Is this the game where Chicago starts regressing a little? San Fran next on the schedule.

KC +12.5 at Pitt - System tells me to pick KC, especially since they're coming off of three straight double digit ATS losses and Pitt is on a 3 game ATS streak, but I may need 14+ points to take KC here.


Likely bets: Cin +4 (maybe Cin ML), SD +3, Car +4 (fool's gold pick), NYJ +6, Hou +1.5 (lots of dogs)
Still considering: Atl -2.5, Min +2

Good luck this week and have a good weekend.

Politics (Not) As Usual - My First Year w/ Interest & Some Fun Political Stories & Facts

From the onset of 2012, this felt like a different year to me.

A year where I started to feel that standing on the sidelines as it relates to the political process was no longer an option.

Sure, it started with the trendy SOPA stuff--and from everything I've learned about politics in the past year, Congress will attempt to pass through similar legislation that could continue to threaten freedom of speech. But as I learned, sometimes it takes something relevant to an individual to say, "Wait a minute, maybe I should start educating myself on this stuff."

There are also plenty of other things I learned over the course of this year (and election season) that has me both optimistic about the future of our country and some things that have me disgusted with the process. I get that people are passionate about their politics. But please - (a) keep it civil, (b) keep it factual, and (c) keep it positive.

In too many cases, folks on both sides of the major parties could recite more negative stuff about the other guy than positive about their own. That's not a good sign for your guy if you're doing that.

Anywho, onward to the talking points:

The True 1%

While everyone was clamoring to see whether Obama would be able to survive this election season against his Republican opponent, history was made of a different kind for the bronze medalist in the presidential race.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received over a million votes (a record for Libertarians) and about 1% of the vote (just short of the party record). Considering the two big dogs spent almost 1000 times more combined than Johnson's campaign (2 billion to 3 million -> source) and got about 1000 times more coverage than former New Mexico governor, it is quite the accomplishment.

I don't know the exact number of votes he got from me and people I know, but it was at least a half dozen. Considering my circle of people isn't all that big, it's much larger than the national percentage. If Gary gives it another run in 2016, I will likely vote for him again, barring some other solid candidate would enter the race.

And no, once again, I wouldn't be wasting my vote.


Stat in the Hat

If you voted for Romney and didn't see this coming, you haven't been studying the stats.

And no, I don't mean the partisan polls on these slanted news networks. I mean Nate Silver's 538 blog, which was running on the NY Times website throughout the election.

If you haven't heard of him, Nate became a polarizing figure over the election cycle with his projections of the election through personalized statistical models, all of which showed Obama taking the electoral college by a much wider margin than expected and winning the popular vote by 2+% (both of these occurred).

Before the election, Republicans argued to no end that his statistical models were wrong and that Romney would win the election with no problem. As is the case with politics as I've found out, people get really f-ing angry when what they are reading or seeing doesn't correspond with a favorable view/rating of the person they are supporting (at least this holds up in general). If you take a look at the comments Silver got from the right, you'd think Silver just made up the stats.

Sports folks among my friend base might recognize Silver's name from his work as a sabermetrics guy and occasional author on various sports websites. In Silver's first analysis of the electoral college in 2008, he projected 49 out of 50 states correctly (he projected Indiana for McCain). He also predicted all 35 Senate races correctly that year.

I'm not sure how many swing states there were in 2008, but all things considered, missing one state in two elections shows me that this guy has a damn good statistical model going here. Stay tuned for his blog in 2016 to see what we should expect.

More Fun Political Stats

Here are a few fun political facts and figures that I found as I kept a really close eye on the Google Election Center, by far the most detailed political map that I came across as I looked for updated statistics on the election:

1. Roseanne Barr finished fifth overall in the popular vote. Yes, the sitcom star and everyone's favorite husky 1990s TV mom finished behind Obama, Romney, Johnson and Jill Stein (Green Party) in the popular vote. Barr's vote total was just a shade under 50,000, which was roughly eight times less than Stein's total. It's not like she came close to winning, but she finished fifth. Her name was on the ballot in Florida, Colorado & California. Welcome to Uhmerica.
2. "None of these candidates" is a voting option in Nevada. If you didn't want to vote for any of the candidates listed on the Nevada ballot, you can place a vote for nobody. Yes, there's an option on their ballots to vote for "None of these candidates". Interestingly enough, this "candidate" finished fourth behind Obama, Romney and Johnson. Sorry Virgil Goode - the Constitution Party candidate literally got beat by no one (None of these candidates got almost double the votes as Goode did in the state).
3. Nothing screams "I'm Fiscally Responsible" like spending billions on a presidential election. As of 10-26-12, Barack & Mitt spent over $2 billion combined on their campaigns combined (source). I'm guessing that total rose over the final couple weeks of the election. In fact, if you break it down by state, Obama spent the most in Illinois (over $39M), which is considered his adopted home state. Likewise, Romney spent the most in his state of Massachusetts ($115M). In both states, the winner was fairly well known before the election began (Obama). Why spend that much in your home states? The site doesn't break down costs, so it's hard to say what this was spent (or wasted) on. Still, it seems ridiculous that each guy would spend so much in a state whose winner was widely known before the election even began.

And one more thing...

Let's not make a mention of the 2016 election for a while. We don't need to encourage these bozos to make this a non-stop thing. My Gary mention is not included in on this - mainly because it's my blog and I'll cry if I want to.

That's all I got. I hope you're as happy as I am for this season to be over. Now, time to watch the Colts/Jaguars game.

On second thought, maybe another election cycle isn't so bad to watch.

My "Useless" Vote - The Same As Your "Useless" Vote

My vote doesn't matter. At least that's what I've been told.

My guy Gary Johnson. is likely to get about 1% of the national vote, while the Siamese twin Mittrack Obamney will get the other 98.999999%. Sorry Green/Constitution Party and Independent advocates - you'll likely muster the other .0000001%, give or take ten zeros.

Your vote on either of these two really only matters in 15 states, argues political expert/doofus/moron Brian Bolek

Oh wait, I forgot about a problem with the argument that my vote doesn't matter. Yours likely doesn't either. In fact, I think we're both wasting our time debating whether our vote actually matters (at least when it comes to Illinois).

The 36 Strong

This can be said for about the 35 states (and DC, which gets 2 votes) whose electoral votes are clearly going to one particular candidate, and thus, getting all of the electoral college votes from them. These states are highlighted on this page: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map. The definition of "clearly" would be over a 95% chance that the state will be won by that particular candidate (Here's a detailed NY Times blog that is tracking this). If you notice the state of Illinois - it is 100% certain that Obama will win this state. Therefore, I would argue that your vote, which matters none in the national vote of a candidate (since the electoral college neuters this and ties someone's vote directly to their state and their state only), is just as useless as mine if you're voting for anyone other than Obama.

(Note: there are two states that allow for electoral votes to be split between candidates - Maine and Nebraska. Both states give two electoral votes to the winner of the state, and then allow their respective state districts decide the rest. For what it's worth, all of Nebraska's "votes" will go to Romney, while Obama is likely to take Maine and both of its districts - although Mitt has a slight chance in one district. Both of these states are among the 35 mentioned above.)

Even if Romney gets 40% in Illinois (just to throw a number out there), sure, he's a hell of a lot more popular to the voting public than any third party candidate, but he gets the same number of electoral votes from Illinois as my 1% does - zero.

If you ditch the electoral college and go straight to popular vote (it'll never happen), then I argue your vote would carry more weight. But since it only matters in the state which you reside, you aren't going to influence the vote.

The 15 That Matter Most

This leaves a total of 15 states who pollsters still have some question on who will carry the state's electoral votes. Many of these states have particular leans already - some Obama, some Romney - while others are statistically up in the air until Tuesday. These states compromise 173 of the electoral votes out of the 538 total (32%). So assuming that the election plays out as it should in those 35 states where Romney and Obama have a guaranteed hold on the votes, this leaves about one-third of the nation's voters with a meaningful vote.

If you break it down based on this site's "too close to call" states (that can be up for debate, especially with the flaws that polls represent), there's at least seven of those states, whose electoral votes total 89 - 16.5% of the electoral votes. This number might be a little higher or lower depending on what data you use, but this is a good estimate.

These are the states where the candidates have been spending the most time and money on, the ones where each candidate will essentially do whatever they can to get a vote (up to and including fellatio...just guessing). I feel sorry for the ads that those states have to deal with on a daily basis - Illinois' close race ads are brutal enough, couldn't imagine the stuff that Romney and Obama have come up with in the swing states.

Those 35 states (and DC) whose electoral votes we can count already as all but certain - each campaign knows better than to waste their time pandering across those states when their vote is (near) certain.

Of course it matters

What I am arguing here, is that in spite of your non-Illinois Obama vote not really playing a role into the election at all, your vote does matter. Mine does too, even if it's only one of about 1% of the vote for Johnson. It's easy to say "Your vote means shit" when you're in a non-swing state and you're voting for a candidate who is certain to lose that state. But your vote is more than just a statistic - it's a representation of your beliefs in who will be the best person to best represent my country (or state/district/town/etc.).

Well - at least that's what it's supposed to be. I'd love to believe that the general public votes FOR candidates rather than AGAINST them (i.e. voting for Candidate A because you believe in him/her and not just because you hate Candidate B that much), but we all know that these anti-votes occur.

I digress.

When you vote, whether you vote in a swing state or not, whether you're voting on any candidate who has a legit shot or not, you are voting for your ideal representatives (unless you're a dumbass).

If you are an Illinois resident and you believe Romney best represents your views on how the country should be run, then by all means vote for him. Meanwhile, I will vote for Gary Johnson who best represents my views.

The expected three top-vote getters in the 2012 election. The guy in the middle (Gary Johnson) will get about 1/49th the votes of each of the guys (Obama/Romney) who sandwich him.

Another digression alert: (And no, my vote for him is not a vote for Obama or Romney - it is a vote for Johnson. I HATE!!! the notion that bi-partisan politics have brought upon the voting culture where you can't just vote for a third party candidate because, I don't know, You actually want to vote for that candidate! The idea that my vote is stealing a vote away from one of these guys is baffling to me. If I wanted to vote for one of those candidates, I would, you know, vote for them. My vote is not stealing a vote away from either because, simply put, I wouldn't vote for either guy if Johnson wasn't on the ballot).

Anywho, enough of this babbling. Go out and vote November 6th for the candidate(s) who best represent your views. And yes - your vote matters.

And so does mine.

If I Ain't Broke, I'm Not Fixing It (Week 9 NFL)

Looks like this little system for the NFL is having some short term luck for me.

Last week's bets went 7-5, would have been much better if I made bets strictly along the lines of the system.

In short, as I mentioned last week, this system is built where you end up betting against teams who have either (a) won two games in a row against the spread by a significant margin - thus creating an inflated line that you can gain value betting the other team or (b) won 3 straight games against the spread. We'll call these guys Fade Material - since that's exactly what you'll want to do in that next game.

The latter (b) has been a cash cow, with teams going 1-10 in their fourth game if they've covered against the spread three in a row (Houston is the only team to cover 4 games in a row). I guess to figure out (a), you'd have to define what a significant amount is against the spread - I'd say exceeding the spread by an average of 14 points or more. Using this number, teams have gone 2-9 against the spread if they've covered their previous two games by an average of 14+ points. The Bears and Vikings are the only teams to record against the spread wins in these scenarios, with both teams losing their following game.

The other half of the system is the opposite (The Biggest Losers) - betting on teams who have had (a) multiple losses against the spread by a significant margin or (b) lost 3 straight games against the spread. In the case of (b), teams are 5-2-2 in that fourth game (Baltimore is the only team this year w/ a 5-game losing streak ATS). And using the same significant margin idea (2 losses in a row against the spread by an average of 14+), these teams bounce back to the tune of a 7-2 record.

Fade Material for Week 9

(a) Won two games in a row ATS by avg of 14+ - None, although Denver (Average ATS win of 13) is close and I'll be betting against them anyways (see below).

(b) Won three straight ATS - Detroit....Bet Jacksonville +4 (hard to do, I know)

Biggest Loser Material for Week 9

(a) Lost two game in a row by avg of 14+ - Unfortunately, no one fits this bill either. Kansas City did (lost previous two by average of 17 per game), but San Diego's streak (lost three straight) took precedence. Kansas City will be a bet next week.

(b) Lost three straight ATS - Cincy (+3.5), Baltimore (-3.5), SD -7 (won Thursday).

We'll see how this goes, but I'm optimistic that this system at least has some common sense behind it. It goes off the premises that people hate to bet teams that have looked like crap the past couple weeks (likely means they've lost ATS in those games), which gives that team a little bit more value in the next game or two. Likewise, if a team is playing so well that it looks like it can't lose, gamblers fall in love with that team and want to keep betting them (riding out the streak), thus making the point spread on them in the following week or two a little inflated, giving value to their opponent.

For this week's bets:

Fool's Gold (6-5 for the year)

Denver -3.5 at Cincy - Christ, how could anyone bet against Peyton Manning? Dude has been money this year, much better than anyone could have thought coming off of his 97th neck surgery in the past 2-3 years (number may be exaggerated). They're coming off a pair of impressive victories (huge 2nd half comeback against San Diego and a drubbing of New Orleans on Sunday Night Football). Meanwhile, Cincy has lost three straight overall (and against the spread, as you read above). They had a first quarter lead in all of those games, only to fail to win any of them. I expect them to play with a sense of desperation as they look to avoid falling completely out of the AFC North with a beat-up Ravens and potentially over-rated Steelers squad ahead of them (each playing road games). I think the Bengals will surprise the Broncos and take this game, but just to be safe, I'll take Cincy +3.5 (may bet the ML as well).

Other Bets: Baltimore -3.5, Jax +4, Dal +4

Considering: Car +3.5, Oak -1.5, Min +4

NCAA Outlook:

Finally had a decent Saturday. College ain't really my cup of tea this year, so tread lightly on following these.

Bets: California -4 (fading the major results of last week - Cal's big loss and Wash's impressive win against previously unbeaten Oregon St), Ariz State +4 (Oregon St will be proven a phony), OK State +8.5 (K State will be challenged), Iowa State +12.5 (let down for Oklahoma), Pitt +16.5 (let down for ND)

Considering: WV -5 & their Over (68), Florida -17

Check my Twitter for updated bets - these are subject to change.

Have a good weekend everyone, and good luck w/ your fantasy leagues/wagers and all that other crap.

Reheat: NBA Preview 2012

With such a short offseason compared to other major sports, it never feels like NBA is out of season.

The freshest things in mind are the ones I'll touch upon. I have friends who I'd consider bigger basketball junkies than me - I'll give you a simpleton's point of view with this past offseason.

The Dwight Stuff

It only took what seemed liked decades, but Dwight Howard finally got his wishes to leave Orlando when his old team traded him to the Lakers. Howard joins veteran Steve Nash as the big acquisitions to the Lakers, who are gearing up for at least one more Kobe title run before he hangs it up in a few years. Anyone who thought the Lakers were not the favorites to land Howard all along (rumors had him going to the Nets as they kick off their inaugural season in Brooklyn). I believe the Lakers will make it far, but I believe their championship will have to wait a year.

Agony of the Heat

Speaking of champions, America's least favorite team - ok, maybe more so Chicago area's least favorite team - is the reigning NBA champion. They added sharpshooting veteran Ray Allen to the mix - a great move in my opinion. I foresee a lot of Lebron kick-outs to a wide open Allen for three this season. With the championship taste still in their mouths, I expect the champs to repeat en route to what should be a dynasty that features at least 4-5 championships (assuming LeBron stays there and doesn't opt out in a couple years).

Thunder Struck

Just a few days ago, the Oklahoma City Thunder traded away James Harden to the Houston Rockets, with the key player coming to the Thunder being Kevin Martin. A lot of people are wondering why the Thunder would make such a move, but apparently Harden turned down a contract with them (wasn't a max contract). With the trade, he can make about 50% more over the life of the contract (signing a max deal w/ Houston over the deal the Thunder offered) if I've read everything right. So he goes from a championship caliber team to a rebuilding one - the classic "Should I chase money or rings?" argument. He can't convince me or anyone else that he thinks he'll even come close to sniffing a conference finals, yet alone contend for a title, in the next 3-4 years, where with OKC, he's likely guaranteed a few more title appearances if he stays. More power to him for taking the money. We all say we'd go for the ring if we were these guys, but WE aren't talented basketball players capable of being in a position to make these choices. Good luck Harden - you'll need it.

Flop It Like It's Hot

One of the biggest rule changes that took place over the offseason was the NBA instituting a fine system for players who attempt to flop on fouls in their attempt to eliminate it from the game. I forgot what journalist said it (I think it was Bomani Jones) who said this will likely create a class in the NBA of those who can afford to flop and those who can't. Players can be fined up to 30K if they are caught flopping up to five times. A guy making six figures won't chance flopping that many times. Should be interesting to see (a) how often this gets enforced and (b) who are guys who get hit with the most fines.

Predictions By Division (in predicted order) - numbers represent their predicted seed in playoffs

Eastern Conference

Atlantic: 2. Boston, 5. Philly, 7. Brooklyn, New York, Toronto

Central: 3. Indiana, 6. Chicago, 8.  Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit

Southeast: 1. Miami, 4. Atlanta, Washington, Orlando, Charlotte

Notes: Yes, probably a little shocked to see Cleveland in the playoffs. I was initially surprised to put them there, but then remembered several playoff teams from last year (New York and Orlando) who I eliminated from consideration. Kyrie should take the next step and show why Cleveland picked him number 1.

Otherwise, my picks are pretty bland. I picked all of the favorites to win their respective divisions here. The most likely division for a long-shot winner would probably be the Atlantic. The Heat should clinch the Southeast title by the end of March, if not sooner. If Rose can return and shake off the rust quick, I could see the Bulls finishing top 2 or 3 in the conference. My projection is that if he does return, the rust will take a while to shake.

Western Conference

Northwest: 2. Denver, 3. Oklahoma City, 7. Utah, Minnesota, Portland

Pacific: 1. LA Lakers, 6. LA Clippers, Golden State, Phoenix, Sacramento

Southwest: 4. Memphis, 5. San Antonio, 8. Dallas, Houston, New Orleans

Notes: I threw a curveball and have Denver and Memphis as division winners. I think I'm buying into Denver based on Hollinger's projection more so than my own analysis. I also think it could take some time for the Thunder to get used to playing without Harden. The Lakers should roll this division but will likely save their energy for the playoffs, so 56/57 wins should be expected as opposed to 60+.

Eastern Playoffs Round 1: Miami over Cleveland, Boston over Brooklyn, Chicago over Indiana, Atlanta over Philly

Western Playoffs Round 1: Lakers over Dallas, Denver over Utah, OKC over Clips, San Antonio over Memphis

EP Round 2: Miami over Atlanta, Boston over Chicago

WP Round 2: Lakers over Spurs, OKC over Denver

Eastern Conference Finals: Miami over Boston

Western Conference Finals: Lakers over OKC

Finals: Miami over LA in 6

NBA MVP: LBJ.......Sleeper: Kyrie Irving 

NBA 6th Man:  Manu Ginobili. San Antonio.....Sleeper: I don't know this category well enough to predict it.

Defensive Player of the Year: Serge Ibaka, OKC.....Sleeper: Andre Iguodala - Denver

Coach of the Year: George Karl, Denver....Sleeper: Larry Drew, Atlanta

Rookie of the Year: Anthony Davis, New Orleans

Most Improved Player: Kyrie Irving, Cleveland

Random prop questions:

1. Will anyone get flop fines up until/past the fifth flop? No
2. Will the Bobcats set an NBA record for losses in a season? No, but barely
3. Return timeline for Derrick Rose - All-Star Break (Before or After): After
4. Biggest Longshot w/ a title hope: Denver at 50/1
5. Biggest Favorite w/ little title hope: Chicago at 16/1 (No Rose, No Shot)

Bets made before season: Denver to win Northwest division +540 (50/270); Denver Over 51.5 wins (130/100)

Spoiler Alert - Why Bad Teams Should Take Pride in their Squads

We're at that point in the year where there's three types of fantasy football owners:

Those preparing for the playoffs: These are the teams that are about 6-2 or 7-1. Barring a catastrophic collapse, these teams should make the playoffs. There's a large margin of error, where these owners can afford to drop a game or two (better now than in the playoffs, right?) Owners of these teams are now worried about making sure they win their division and get a good seed for the playoffs. A top 2/3 seed is very likely.

Those fighting for a playoff spot: These are the teams around the 3, most likely the 4 or 5 win mark. None of these teams can afford a multiple game losing streak for fear of falling to the bottom bracket. These are the owners that are most meticulous and insane about making sure they set the right lineup each week. One wrong move could boot you from a chance at the Geno Bowl. One right move, and your path to nerd glory is a step closer from being achieved.

Those who likely don't give a shit anymore: These are the teams at about 2 wins or below. Checking the lineup isn't as fun anymore, especially when half of your starting team from Week 1 is either hurt or underperforming.

Being a spoiler (especially in fantasy football games) should be fun for bad teams.

I came here to discuss the last group, those who feel like they are out of it.

I say - take some pride when you set your lineups each week. Don't you wanna piss off one of these folks one of these groups above you, just to hear them whine as your Nick Foles pick-up netted you 30 points in a come-from-behind win that devastated someone's playoff hopes like your own? I mean, c'mon, how fun is it to beat someone who was expecting to beat the shit out of you?

If your team starts fading in the next couple weeks, don't give up. Keep in mind that you can ruin someone else's playoff dreams. And as they* always say, ruining someone else's dream is the American dream.

Take pride in your team from beginning to end. I know your team didn't turn out the way you wanted it to, but give yourself the last smile, the last laugh. Take out that sweaty mess of an owner who needs one more win to make the playoffs. Show him or her that you shouldn't fuck with my bad team. You mess with the bull and you get the shit.

Besides, do you really want to keep losing, you big fat loser that no one likes, not even your mother**?

*Yeah, I've heard a lot of people say this. And by a lot, I mean...shut up and read.

**I'm just assuming this. Why should your mother love you if you suck at fantasy football? Mine wouldn't.

Never Leave the Table When You're On a Heater - Week 8 Picks

It only took me three weeks of NFL to give myself a personal bye from gambling. It was that bad of a run.

After that week break, it only took me a couple weeks for me to finally say that I'm about to hit my in-season run of a lifetime.

With the help of a spreadsheet I've created that shows how much a team wins or loses against the spread on a weekly basis (thanks to Covers.com for the numbers), I've figured out a good way to find great spots to bet teams who are either coming off of two or three straight games where they don't cover or even better, fading teams who are riding 2/3 straight covers.

The bigger the covers, the more likely I fade them.

The bigger the losses, the more likely I bet them.

We'll see if it works, but I'm liking the results so far.

From Week 6 to Week 7 -

Houston goes from getting destroyed by the Packers (losing to the spread by 22) to winning by 23.5 against the spread against Baltimore (look to bet Baltimore in Week 9 - they've lost five straight games against the spread - the only team with more than three straight games without a cover).

Jacksonville lost two straight games against the spread by a total of 48 points. They get a bye week and an inflated line against a subpar Oakland squad who was spotting Jacksonville 6 points against the spread. Jacksonville holds the lead most of the game, blows it, but still covers the spread by a field goal.

Pittsburgh has a prime-time loss against the lowly Titans, giving the Steelers their third straight non-cover. In Week 7, they fell behind 14-3 against the Bengals but took over the game from the second quarter one and ended up winning and covering. Like Baltimore, I plan on betting Cincinnati after their Week 8 bye since they have failed to cover in three straight.

The Bears got a week to rest in Week 6 after three impressive wins (covered by an average of 17 points/game). They were covering most of the Detroit game but lost it on a touchdown with less than a minute left, allowing Detroit backers (like this guy) to cash in. Sure, the Bears could (and should) have covered it, but they didn't. And since they failed to cover by the slightest of margins, perception of them is still positive. I find a second-week fade of the Bears to be in the works.

I don't know if I've stumbled into something good to use for the rest of the year and perhaps in future years or if I'm over-thinking this stuff. It's worth a shot for now since I've taken a look at this year's data and saw that there's great value in fading teams with (1) a mini-streak against the spread or (2) coming off a couple huge wins against the spread. Likewise, while it may feel icky to bet crappy teams like Jacksonville to cover, betting teams who have racked up several bad losses in a row are likely to have a point spread that is more of a reflection of their recent streak than what the team actually is. Even if you gain a couple points based on this perception, you gain an advantage.


Week 9 Picks

Fool's Gold (5-4 record) - Pick 1 Car +7.5 at Chicago...You look at the line and you can't believe it. How is Carolina not a 10+ point dog to the Bears, considered by many to be a top-3 team in the league? After all, Carolina's offense is a mess/the Bear's defense capitalizes on team's mistakes like no other. The Bears have a good rushing attack and a QB who hasn't made as many mistake this year, save the Packer debacle. Some interesting stats between the two teams: Carolina (5.9 yards/play - T6th), Chicago (5.2 y/p - T23rd); Chicago D (4.9 y/p - T-3), Carolina (5.5 - T 17th). Both teams average more per play than they allow on defense. What this means, I don't know. Just really wanted to distract you from the fact that Carolina is my Pick in this Fool's Gold that is begging for Chicago money.

Pick 2 Atl at Phil (-3) - Say what? The league's remaining undefeated team is an underdog to a team who has limped to a 3-3 record, a team who hasn't won a game by more than two points? Both teams are coming off of a bye, but Andy Reid prepares as well on byes as he does on increasing the size of his thighs on a daily basis. Atlanta allows the 8th most yards per play (5.9) while the Eagles are one of the better teams (5.1). I expect Vick to have his best game against the Falcons game (no turnovers). I also expect McCoy to have his best day of the year against the Falcons (only the Bills allow more than the Falcons' 5.2 per carry). Philly wins by two scores.

Other Picks: Det -1, Pitt -4.5 (Already bet TB +6.5)
Other Possibles: Dallas (if it gets up to 3+), Denver -6 (NO has had 3 straight covers), Mia +2 (NYJ has had 3 straight covers), KC -2


Limited NCAA leans: Penn St, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Nebraska. With my bad Saturdays lately, I'm looking to cut back. Feeling my NFL roll right now

Chart Attack: Why Teams Should Go For Two-Point Conversions At Any Point (When the Math Dictates It) and Not Always Follow the Chart

One of the most baffling things to me in football is the concept of going "by the chart".

What is this chart you speak of, you're asking of course. Well I'll gladly tell you - it's the rule of thumb that coaches go by when determining the appropriate time to go for a two-point conversion after a touchdown instead of kicking the extra point.

The standard rule in going for two is to only go for it when you're nearing the fourth quarter or actually in the fourth. Otherwise, according to many people who support the chart, you become obsessed with chasing points and missing out on a guaranteed point when going for two is such a risk.

I am here to put my full support behind burning this so-called "chart" and tell you why I don't have a problem with teams breaking the conventional "wisdom" of not going for two until the latter stages of the game.

Origins of "The Chart"

Before I actually started this piece, I decided to Google the words "two point conversion chart" just to see if there was an actual chart or if this was some brilliant scheme hatched by play-by-play and game analysts to convince us that there is a right and a wrong time to go for two-points.

Dick Vermeil's chart

I was surprised to see that there is an actual chart. And it was designed by none other than Dick Vermeil. As an assistant coach with UCLA in the 1970s, Vermeil came up with the idea of a chart that would assist the coach on the appropriate times to go for 2 or just kick the extra point. To the right is what the chart looks like.

I believe the chart is good in theory, but its standard use by coaches, especially in the NFL, is what I find problematic. Most coaches by nature are too conservative and for whatever reason (whether it's a fear of losing out on a sure point or a fear of being critiqued for a failed two-point conversion by the media) just don't want to take a chance to go for two, even if it means that the potential conversion would either tie the game or put you up by a score that could be achieved in one play by the opposing team (i.e. going for two when up by 1 to go up a field goal or when up by 5 to go up by a touchdown).

If you notice, coaches usually only go for two in the late stretches of games in this particular situations, not in the second quarter of games as a team tonight did (read below for that).


The Death of Two-Pointers in NCAA

What surprises me (or perhaps it shouldn't) is that the use of the two-point conversion has actually gone down in the NCAA since then, according to an NCAA article from 2008 about the subject: 50th anniversary of 2-point conversion 

This particular article shows that the use of the two-point conversion has gone down from an all-time high of over 51% of all touchdowns in 1958 (the first instance of the two-point conversion being used as a possibility to follow touchdowns) to an al-time low of only 5% of touchdowns being followed by a two-point attempt in 2007

There could be several reasons for this:

1. NCAA Overtime didn't exist until 1996. Therefore, teams who didn't want to tie a game would be more likely to take a risk on a two-point conversion in order to go for the win as opposed to settling for the tie. Now, since there can't be any ties, there is less incentive now than there was in the period preceding the overtime rules in going for the win.
2. Coaches have become more concerned with how taking such a "risk" might look to media looking for any little thing to blast the coach about should such conversions fail.
3. The success rate for the conversions isn't high enough for coaches to justify going for two unless they have to.

From the article linked above - the use of 2-pt conversions since its advent in 1958

Out of those reasons, the chart, as it's best described during a game by the play-by-play and game analysts, best fits into the third category - minimizing risk of losing points for the sake of chasing for that extra point too early.

After all, why should you go for two-point conversions when you're up by one point in the second quarter when so many more possessions in the game remain for you to score. Why risk the two-point conversion when the chances of making an extra-point via kick are way more safe?

NFL writer Michael Lombardi is a big proponent of the chart, as evidenced by the article he wrote last year on the subject. I will not disagree with him on the math part of going for two versus going for one (since 2006, PAT kicks are made on average between 98.3 and 99.5% of the time, whereas the 300 attempts of going for two during that time succeeded at a 45.7% clip - thus justifying, in Lombardi's eyes, not going for two until you absolutely have to). To be worth the risk in the long-run, you'd need to convert the two-point conversion as least half as much as you would the PAT (since the kick is worth half as much). I can see that to some degree, but....

The elements I disagree with him and others about when it comes to the use of two-point conversions and strictly sticking to the chart:

1. Why does it need to be a particular point in the game when you should "follow the chart" when going for two? Just because the percentages of how two-point conversions have historically done shouldn't be the end-all, be-all in deciding that two-pointers aren't worth the risk until the fourth quarter.
   
   I was following a game this afternoon where the Buffalo Bills were trailing 28-20 mid-way through the third quarter. After scoring a touchdown to go down by 2, I figured they might attempt a two-point conversion so they can tie the game - they didn't. They kicked the extra point to cut the lead to 28-27. The Bills went on to score another TD and didn't go for two again, although at that point I expected it even though a two-pointer could give them a full-touchdown lead as opposed to two field goals.
   
   But Brian, if they miss the two-pointer in either of those situations, they are losing out on a point that could help them later in the game. If they miss the conversion when scoring and up by 5, they'll be leaving themselves exposed to losing because the other team could kick two field goals and win.
   
   Well, the Bills took a 34-28 lead into the fourth quarter and never scored another point. However, the Tennessee Titans did - via a touchdown with about a minute left that gave them the 1-point win.
   
   On the other hand, the Pittsburgh Steelers went for two against the Bengals in the second quarter after a touchdown put them down 14-12. They went on to convert it and ended up winning the game 24-17. The conversion didn't end up playing a role in the final score as much as the non-conversion did with Tennessee. But it would have had the Bengals ended up scoring a touchdown in the waning part of the game (as the Titans did). The Bengals would have been forcing overtime if they scored, which is what the Titans didn't need to do because of the Bills not going for two after two touchdowns in the third.
   
2. If you have the chance to tie a game, do it, no matter the time of game. Yes, the math of conversions may not benefit the two-point conversion in general, but I believe they should be attempted more frequently and earlier in games.
   
   The worry that coaches and media personalities stress when going for two early in games is that you are "chasing points", which shouldn't be done if you have many more possessions left in a game to achieve more scores.
   
   However, who's to say that the Steelers, who were down by two in the second quarter after scoring a touchdown, might not score the rest of regulation time? Even though they may have 7-10 more possessions, there's no guarantee that they are able to find the end zone or have another scoring opportunity in the game again.
   
   Hell, it practically happened to the Bengals at that point in the game - they'd only go on to score three more points. Giving yourself the best chance to win might not always be by following the math of PAT vs. two point risk, but rather letting game situations at any point in the game (not just the fourth quarter) dictate your move after a touchdown is scored.
   
   In the situation described in Lombardi's story from last year, he mentioned the Packers going for two (and failing) when a touchdown put them up by 1 with about 18 game minutes left. He believes that the fourth quarter should be the only time a two-point conversion should be attempted, but if that ends up being the last score the Packers have in regulation, a one-point lead is essentially the same as a two-point lead (not taking into account a safety, which should never really be considered a serious scoring option for any team).
   
   After all, if the opposing team kicks a field goal in the Packers situation, they're up by a point in the situations where an XP is kicked prior to that (as the Titans were today) or up by two if the two point conversion fails. If the two-pointer is attempted and then converted, this gives the team added insurance should they be shutout in the final quarter and their opponent scores the necessary score (field goal or touchdown) to tie the game.
   

You best believe that had the Steelers missed the two-pointer, you would have heard critiques of the choice to "chase points" by the guys in the booth. In fact, I heard Cris Collinsworth make a comment about not agreeing with Mike Tomlin's choice to go for two before the attempt. His voice would have taken on a paternal "you should know better" tone if the conversion failed - and especially if the Steelers would have gone on to lose by only a point.

It's the conservative nature of coaches and the media perpetrating this myth to new heights that allows for this "chart" to have its place only in the fourth quarter of games.

If I have the time (or had the time - we'll see if I can really get to doing this), I'll try seeing how often teams are in the Bills position of trailing by eight in the early-to-mid stages in a game and NOT going for two after scoring a touchdown to see how often they end up losing by one.

For now, I will remain a proponent of trying to tie the game or expanding your lead to a standard score (i.e. attempting a two pointer when up by 1 so you can go up by a field goal) whenever you get the opportunity to after a touchdown, and you (nor some stupid chart) can't convince me otherwise.