Super Bowl MVP

It's Super Bowl Sunday, or should I say it's the day of the Big Game. Before I rant about the game's MVP, the NFL needs to get a life. They need to stop suing people who use the term Super Bowl in advertising. Is anybody going to a bar to watch The Big Game? Is anybody going to a Big Game Party? Of course not, they're going to see the Super Bowl, Super Bowl XLV.

You know, there was a business a few years ago that they made change their name. Don't quote me on the type of business, but I think it was a bowling alley that had been called Super Bowl since the 1950s. But they didn't trademark the name and the NFL did.

Back to the MVP. It's probably going to be a QB or a RB without an outside chance of a WR. Thus far, it's been a QB in 22 of 44. There have been 7 RBs and 6 WRs. There have been 2 defensive ends, 2 linebackers, 2 safeties, a cornerback, a defensive tackle, and a kick returner. If you are counting, that adds up to 45, because SB XII had co-MVPs, defensive lineman from the Cowboys.

Some of these are ridiculous. Timmy Smith, a nobody ever heard of him running back broke the SB record with nearly 200 yards rushing in SB XXVI, but Mark Rypien was the MVP. For what, handing the ball off to Timmy Smith? If you're counting, Rypien was 18 for 33. That's less than 55%. Who did he pay off?

Super Bowl XXXVI -- Tom Brady goes 16 for 27 for 145 measly yards, but is somehow the MVP. If he was the most valuable player in that game, then they all must have sucked.

I could go on, but it's almost kickoff time. Go Giants! Oops, they forgot to make the playoffs this year.

Excessive Celebration in Sports

The sarcastic among the pundits like to refer to the NFL as the No Fun League instead of the National Football League. I guess that's because the players aren't allowed to have enough fun. Call me boring, call me old school, call me whatever you like, but they and other pro athletes are having a lot of fun. They are playing games and making millions of dollars, sometimes without being that kind of fantastic at their sports. To me, that would be fun enough.

So, I watch a wide receiver make a fairly routine catch for a 12-yard gain and a first down. And, he struts all over the field. Hasn't he just done what he is getting paid for? Or, is he the one who is right and in fact, when I help out a client, I should be doing chest bumps with my nearest colleague? I don't think so. That is what I get paid for. Don't get me wrong, it's fine to show some emotion, but this has gone way too far. To a large extent, I blame ESPN the most , and the networks that carry the games to a slightly lesser extent. They show these stupid celebrations over and over again. So, the players really believe, in my opinion, that this is what everybody wants to see.

Don't get me wrong. When B.J. Raji (all 338 pounds of him) ran back an interception for a touchdown a week ago, that was different. While interceptions are part of the game he plays, that was probably a once in a career thing for him. It was unexpected ... to him and to everyone else in the stadium and out in TV land. He deserved some celebratory moments.

But, when you do exactly what it is that you are getting paid for, just treat it as part of your job. I never saw Walter Payton practicing Zumba after he scored a touchdown (OK, there was no Zumba then). Johnny Unitas never shook his booty in an opponent's face. Alan Page didn't do a dance over a fallen quarterback. To players like this, being great at what they did and contributing to wins was enough. And, they didn't get paid anywhere near as much.

Obviously, more people than not disagree with me. But, it's my blog, so here I am correct, until you convince me otherwise. Disagree? Tell me so. Convince me. But, if you think that's easy, You Don't Know John.

I Have Opinions on Sports - Tennis This Time

I have opinions on sports. So does everyone else. The difference, of course, is that my opinions are closer to being facts. Oh, you think yours are, too?

Since a major tennis tournament is in progress, I am going to get controversial about tennis, first. I hear all this stuff about Roger Federer being the greatest player of all time. I take exception. Roger Federer may (or may not) be the greatest male singles player of all time. He has an excellent serve, one of the great forehands in history, an outstanding backhand, and a good net game when he uses it.

Roger Federer has never won a Grand Slam. Rod Laver won 2 of them, 7 years apart. He won one in 1962 as an amateur. Then, he turned pro and wasn't eligible for the Grand Slam events from 1963 through 1968. Then, he won the Grand Slam as a pro in 1969. He won 11 major singles titles and 8 major doubles titles despite being in eligible for 6 years in his prime. He was arguably the #1 player in the world every year from 1961 through 1971. That's 11 straight years. He won on grass, he won on clay, and although there were no Grand Slam hard court events at the time, he won on hard courts. He had perhaps the best forehand in his era, one of the best backhands, and probably the best serve and the best net game.

Today, they play with different equipment, they have tour trainers, the players are pampered. I know that we really have no way of comparing, so all we can do is look at dominance in their own eras. For my money, The Rocket was the best ever.

You disagree? Then, comment!