The 24 Hour News Cycle Can Officially Go to Hell

Today, a plane crashed into a building in Austin. Apparently, the guy who did it was disgruntled, or upset, at something. Whatever.

I no longer care. I just want to know the facts. The speculation makes us all dumber. This is one of the lessons learned about the media after 9/11. 24-hour news is a contradiction in terms, because there is really only about twenty minutes of news a day. Everything else goes something like this:

Reporter: Is it true that the man who crashed the plane into the building might have dressed up as a zombie and ate human flesh with his children?

Expert: Yes, it's entirely possible. And let's not forget the after-effects of eating human flesh, which has shown in lab rats to cause irritability and psychosis.

Reporter: If he indeed ate human flesh, and indeed suffered from irritability and psychosis, do you think that could have led to him crashing the plane into the building?

Expert: It's hard to say at this moment, but it very well could be at least one reason why he did it.

Hey, it's nothing new to criticize the 24-hour news cycle. But when I walk into a place and they're playing the news and I overhear all the stuff being analyzed and guessed-at, it reminds me of why I no longer watch the news. It's unfortunate that I can no longer trust the news, that even when they finally reach a conclusion and have dug up every detail they possibly can about an individual who has done a horrible thing, that you still can't take it as gospel.

Further making the 24-hour news cycle bleak are the revelations of the Columbine incident. The news reported one way, and then someone had to come out with a book explaining that all the things that we thought we knew about Columbine were absolutely wrong.

The same goes for the Patriot missiles during the Gulf War, seen as these great Scud-busting weapons of efficiency that in actuality hardly ever worked. Or the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein, a staged incident.

Can we start over? Do we have to put up with this?

The Colts Are Headed Towards Repeating A Losing History

Really, does anyone ever think anymore? Why is it conventional wisdom to rest your starters and play your scrubs if you've clinched everything you can possibly clinch in the regular season? Oh, because of injuries, right? Whatever, you don't have much of a chance anyway if you don't play your starters in the final week.

Super Bowl winners this decade, and what they did in the final week of the season:

The 2000 Ravens played their starters the whole game in a 34-20 win over the Jets. The Super Bowl runner-up Giants also played their starters. This year, it looks like all the teams played their starters for most or all of the final game.

2001 Patriots, same, in a 38-6 win over Panthers. The Pats eventual opponent, the Rams, would also play their starters in the final game. Most teams play their starters in this playoff year, except for the Eagles and Bucs in the final game, against each other. They would play each other the next week, and someone had to win, and it was the Eagles. In an anomaly, the Eagles then beat the Bears (who played their starters in the final week) in Chicago. The Rams took care of the Eagles the following week.

2002 Buccaneers, yep, in a 15-0 win in cold weather over Chicago. Their opponent, the Raiders, also played their starters. The 49ers didn't, and needed an 18-point rally and a miracle catch by Terrell Owens to win their next playoff game against the Giants, and then they got destroyed by the Bucs. All the other teams played starters.

The 2003 Patriots, who had clinched 1st round bye already, beats Buffalo 31-0 with Brady throwing 4 TDs. The Super Bowl runner-up Panthers also played their starters in the last game. Most teams here did play their starters, except the Broncos, who would get crushed by the Colts 41-10 in the playoffs.

2004 Patriots, in a very interesting case study for this argument. They had already clinched the 2 seed, went in and beat the 49ers in what was a bad game, 21-7. Meanwhile, the Steelers went 15-1, running their scrubs against the Bills in a 29-24 win. In their playoff game against the Jets, they won in OT 20-17 only because Jets kicker Doug Brien missed TWO field goals in the final TWO minutes of the game. They then got drubbed at home 41-27 by the Pats.

The Colts also trotted out their backups in the final game against Denver, lost that game, then destroyed the Broncos the next week in the playoffs. Then, lost to the Pats 20-3.

The 2005 Steelers had to win their last game. But check this out: The Bengals, Patriots, Jaguars, and yes, the Colts, played scrubs in the final game. The Jags and Pats played each other, so someone had to win there and it was the Pats, who would lose to the Broncos, who played all their starters in a meaningless game in the final game of the season. The Colts lost their game against the Steelers. The Bengals notably lost Carson Palmer in their game against Pittsburgh, so data is skewed there, but how do we know he didn't get creamed because his O-line was out of sync? Basically, both AFC Championship reps played their starters in the final game.

The Steelers' opponent, the Seahawks, are the closest to bucking the trend. But it looks like for the most part, they played their starters in the final game despite some replacements towards the end. The lone team that didn't play their starters was the Bears, and they lost to the Panthers.

2006 Colts. They finally win, and this time they played their starters in a final game where they needed to win to clinch the 3 seed. They beat Miami 27-22. It looks like all 6 of the AFC reps played their starters in the final game. The Bears amazingly made the Super Bowl with a QB controversy, but they played their starters. The Eagles rested, barely beat an 8-8 Giants team, lost to the Saints, who also rested their starters, and then the Saints lost to the Bears, 39-14.

2007 Giants. They memorably played their future Super Bowl opponent Patriots in the final game. They had nothing to play for except to beat an undefeated team, and nearly did, losing 38-35. In the AFC, the Jaguars rested their starters and won a close game against the Steelers the next week, then lost to the Pats. The Colts would eventually rest their starters against the Titans in the final week, then lose to the Chargers in their first playoff game. In fact, the Chargers were playing hurt in that game and still won.

2008 Steelers. Ben Roethlisberger got hurt in a meaningless game against the Browns, and predictably, there were questions about whether it was wise or not to play him. But they blasted the Browns 31-0 and Roethlisberger was OK. Meanwhile, the Titans and Colts played it safe in their final game against each other, and both got bounced in their first games. The 8-8 Chargers took care of the Colts, and the Ravens beat the Titans. Yes, both winners played their starters in the final game. The other AFC rep, the Dolphins, played their starters but lost to the Ravens.

The NFC contender Cardinals, of course, went 9-7 and barely looked like a playoff team, but they played their starters in the final game. All the NFC teams did, in fact, except the Giants, who got bounced by an equally questionable Eagles team in their first playoff game.

Every team who won the Super Bowl this decade played their starters in the final game, and didn't take them out in the second half or anything. Guys, this is a remarkable fact. It doesn't guarantee you a Super Bowl win, but it gives you a better chance than a team that rests their starters. Not one team this decade has won the Super Bowl after resting their starters in the final week. They might get a playoff win here and there, but they do not even go to the Super Bowl, as even the runners-up have played their starters in the final week.

Yet, vile stupidity reigns every year. Rest your starters for the playoffs. Don't get hurt. I heard some serious garbage tonight from sports radio that lauded the decision of Jim Caldwell to rest Peyton Manning today in the 29-15 loss to the Jets that ended their perfect season. He brought up the injury factor, neglecting the fact that the Colts O-line, plus Manning's quick thinking, usually avoids their star QB from getting hit. When this Curtis Painter guy came in and they gave up the sack (and fumble TD), it was the first time in like a billion plays they had allowed a sack.

By the way, if the Titans were still in the playoff hunt, I would have been pissed at the Colts forever for allowing the Jets to play against their B-team. I'm sure there are more than a few teams upset about the Colts' wrong decision today.

With the way the Chargers are playing, the Colts need to be sharp in the playoffs if they want to make it to the Super Bowl again. But, what can I say, conventional wisdom, which is incredibly false, will prevail again.

Brief Sports Discussion

My head is still buzzing a bit from a comment made by my new favorite NFL analyst, Trent Dilfer, after the trade of Tony Gonzalez to the Falcons. He says something like, "Let me tell you something, Tony Gonzalez has forgotten more about football than these current Falcons on the offense know. When he comes in there he's going to be able to teach them so much about the little nuances and their learning curve is going to speed up."

Huh? What? Do veteran players really have this kind of power? Weren't the Chiefs 2-14 last year with a young QB (Tyler Thigpen) and a young receiver (Dwayne Bowe) and were 25th in the NFL in scoring? Wouldn't Gonzalez's presence have helped their learning curve a bit? And these Falcons who are young...didn't they score exactly 100 points more than the Chiefs did last year with a bunch of guys who apparently don't know as much football as Gonzalez has forgotten? Their top receivers (Roddy White, Michael Jenkins) haven't been around for long, but a few seasons...enough to be veteran. And Matt Ryan did a pretty good job in his rookie season. I'm not sure, I might have heard about that a few times last year.

Gonzalez's presence in the Falcons lineup certainly helps and makes them better. But these TV guys (especially former players) always seem to think a veteran presence = all this stuff young players can learn! This whole "learning" idea has worked wonders in the past when a young QB has been drafted to replace the old QB. See: Rodgers, Aaron/Favre, Brett. Also: McNair, Steve/Chandler, Chris.

I think more accurately, it opens up your offense to do more and hence, your QB has more options, more weapons, and the appearance that tremendous learning has occurred because the stats don't lie.

Also:

Our mortal enemies, the San Jose Sharks, went down in fairly embarrassing fashion last night. They were the league's best team and got sunk by the 8-seed Anaheim Ducks. And while this isn't terribly surprising, considering a core of current Ducks have won a Stanley Cup and are still good, it's still a sweet thing to see.

One thing that I love about the Sharks' demise is that they're a team every year NHL analysts scratch their head over and wonder, "Will they ever take the next step?" This year, they looked to have it all together, and they lost in the first round. This makes me wonder, though...why couldn't the Predators take advantage of these perennial playoff losers?

My Take on Stewart-Cramer

Once again, I find myself unable to just comment on this:

The thrust of KW's post is that the news media has, again, lost their mind and have been devoting time to something that on the whole, is not that important. But I think dismissing Jon Stewart for whatever nonsense he's done in the past is wrong.

My thoughts on "The Daily Show" are actually complex. To be fair to Stewart, Comedy Central, and the show itself, they came out and admitted that the whole thing was silly. They mocked the whole "showdown" thing and the embarrassing media coverage it had garnered. Stewart says in the interview, "We're both snake oil salesmen, but at least we label the show as snake oil here." And later, Stewart laments that he's even in this position, wanting to go back to non-political commentary. Stewart also mentioned in an interview on the old CNN show "Crossfire" that he should not be the source for political commentary because the show that precedes his is "a bunch of puppets making crank calls."

However, on the flip side, this all seems to be window dressing. It is an anti-criticism tactic to hide behind "it's just a comedy show" when you make your living pointing out the hypocrisies of the media and politicians. They have mostly authors and political figures as guests. If the show was "only" a comedy show, then Stewart and Comedy Central would focus on the entertainment industry, skits, pratfalls, and so on, much like a David Letterman or Conan O'Brien, or like what the show was with Craig Kilborn. It isn't honest to say their aims are just "to make you laugh."

As to Stewart's past as a cog in the comedy machine, first a stand-up comic and then appearing in a lot of stupid movies, this doesn't scream "Edward R. Murrow" but it's unfair to judge one's validity in journalism because of past endeavors. If one is able to articulate valid remarks and pointed criticism, it makes no difference what that person did before. I would imagine many journalists have done stupid things in their pasts as well, maybe getting their starts as a "good news" reporter interviewing zebras at the zoo.

Unfortunately, there are few good journalists, and no one is asking the hard questions. It is silly that Jon Stewart is the guy who does this on a regular basis. The show has pointed out so many things that are wrong with the media and politicians: it is absolutely incredible that they find footage from years ago, pouring over what must be miles of boring tape, and call people out on their nonsense. What other show describing themselves as "hard news" does this? I think this is another good point that "The Daily Show" brings out. I think they are incredulous that they're the ones who have to do this. The very thing that is their bread and butter is something they don't want to be their bread and butter. They actively wish that real news organizations would do this so they wouldn't feel compelled to do so.

Maybe it's like that scene in The American President when Michael J. Fox, as Lewis Rothschild, pleads with the President (Michael Douglas) to go out and be a leader:

People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

To which Douglas replies:

Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

I think if you change the words "leader" and "leadership" to "smart journalism" that's the point I'm trying to make.

One More Thing

I'm on a roll today. Too many things keep popping up that I feel like I must comment upon.

You can call me a bitter Titans fan all you want, but even if Baltimore had won against another team today, the "Joe Flacco is the first rookie QB to win two playoff games" drivel must go out the door.

He made a couple of nice plays and definitely didn't assist the Titans in any way. He didn't make the rookie mistakes. But come on...he hardly "won" this game. The game I watched and the end result are so incongruous I'm still checking to see if my organs are in the correct place. Damn what a bad loss this was. Bitter.

More Insanity: The "I Played Football So I Know" Factor

As an addendum to my previous post, I recently listened to an exchange with Trent Dilfer and Merril Hoge about the Titans Terrible Towel Incident.

It is absolutely no surprise that the former players joined in on the "it gives the Steelers extra motivation" parade. And of course, their experiences as NFL players give them examples that they can draw from that prove this point.

Dilfer yammered on about how a team is supposed to win with class. Yep, the same Trent Dilfer who was on that tremendously classy 2000 Ravens Super Bowl squad where Brian Billick uttered those famous thought-he-was-off-camera remarks, "Fuck the Titans," after their playoff win in Nashville. The same Billick who was also caught on camera saying, "Fuck you," to the Titans sideline after a Jamal Lewis TD. The same lawless Ravens with Ray Lewis and Jamal Lewis. The same one with Shannon Sharpe talking shit after every game.

I would also add that before that particular playoff game, the Titans' fans were treated to a pre-game video, here documented by the Baltimore Sun:

A pre-game video galvanized the Ravens and backfired on the Titans.

As the teams prepared for the opening kickoff, the Titans' video board showed Ravens coach Brian Billick making several statements about the Titans. None was inflammatory or derogatory, but the Ravens became incensed at the obvious motivational ploy.

"It kind of fed into our game plan," said quarterback Trent Dilfer. "We wanted this game to be a fistfight. We didn't want flash and glitz. We wanted this to be a straight-out street brawl.

"When they did that, that's what it became. You saw smiles on our sideline, because everybody recognized this is going to be a fistfight, this is going to be a brawl. This is old-school, 1940s football, and we feel very comfortable with that style."

Billick said the video was "totally classless" and emphasized that he had said only complimentary things about the Titans last week. "It was a great motivator," he said. "I went up and down that sideline and said, `Guys, you've got to back me up.' Every single one of them came and hugged me after the game. They said, `Coach, we've got your backside.' "

Billick exonerated Titans coach Jeff Fisher, general manager Floyd Reese and President Jeff Diamond from blame in the affair.

"I've known them for years, and they're class guys," Billick said. "There's no way anyone could ever convince me that they know about that. I'll be very, very surprised if they're not upset about that as much as I am."

Fisher's response: "They went down 7-0. I don't think the video had anything to do with it. It wasn't my video."

I remember one quote that was in that video, it was after the 24-23 win the Ravens had in the regular season over the Titans. The Titans were on the Sports Illustrated cover that week and with the "best team in the NFL" curse-like statement SI is known for. Billick held up this issue after the game and said, "Maybe they are...but not today." I don't think you can blame anyone for showing this clip before a game. It gets the fans excited, hopefully your team excited, but extra motivation? Hardly.

There are a lot of interesting things about that 24-10 Ravens win that day. As you can see, even then Dilfer was spouting nonsense about "feeding into our game plan," and whatnot. The Ravens, on offense, were limited to 6 first downs and 134 yards. Even if you can argue that the Ravens defense was motivated (they did, after all, block a field goal and returned an interception for touchdowns in the 4th quarter, the difference in the game...which I will turn around and say, "What took them so long?"), what kind of bullshit is Trent Dilfer talking about? His offense didn't do anything that proves his point.

You'll see, also, Fisher doesn't exactly buy all this "extra motivation" stuff either. What I feel like, and probably Fisher does too, is that once the game begins, you forget all this stupid stuff and play the game. You need to think about your assignments and your playbook.

Merril Hoge then discussed his experience with extra motivation, citing the 1989 season with the Steelers. The Oilers had beaten the Steelers twice that year, and apparently Oilers coach Jerry Glanville rubbed it in their faces. So Hoge, with absolute clarity and definitiveness, remembers how the Steelers beat the Oilers in the playoffs that same year, clearly possessed by the lack of respect the Oilers showed them. Ummm...does a 26-23 OT win justify this reasoning?

It's like this (in as random a way as possible):

I say, "The Steelers are going to win this game because they drink Gator-Aid."

Then, the Titans come out to a 17-0 lead. They command the game for 3 1/2 quarters, allowing only two field goals. Then the Titans shank a punt and give the Steelers the ball on the 35 yard line, easily score a touchdown, make it 17-13. Then a series of penalties stalls the next Titans drive, and the Steelers get it back with good field position, and they score another touchdown with no time left on the clock. They win 20-17.

I say, "You see? Gator-Aid."

I say this without knowing whether the Titans sideline also drank Gator-Aid, and I say this without giving credit to other determining factors. I am also giving a lot of credit to Gator-Aid without knowing the true effects of it. It's a cousin to "the ends justify the means." Just because I say "Here's a factor," and the team I'm picking to win does win, doesn't mean I was right about the way they won.

Terrible Towel Controversy!

So Lendale White and Keith Bulluck stomped on some Steeler "terrible towels" after the 31-14 win over the Steelers Sunday. This, like all stupid shit, has become a controversy and a way for sports writers to earn a paycheck discussing it. And as usual, these people have lost their minds.

Here's what coach Jeff Fisher says:

"Why would it be a big deal? That if we play [the Steelers] again, they'll play harder? I don't think so," Fisher told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen. "They always play hard."

I didn't see it, only heard the broadcast, but from what I've gleaned from the scene, there were a ton of Steelers fans at LP Field waving these things like it was a home game. Whether this is a statement for bandwagon Titans fans who didn't think they had a chance and sold off their tickets, or a tremendous statement of the travel capabilities of the Steelers fans, I think if I were White or Bulluck, I'd be a bit pissed off about that sight as well.

Completely ludicrous are discussions like this (from the same ESPN article):

Three years ago, Bengals receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh wiped his shoes with a Terrible Towel after Cincinnati won 38-31 in Pittsburgh in early December to all but clinch the AFC North. When the teams met again a month later in Cincinnati, the Steelers -- motivated by Houshmandzadeh's shoe-wiping display -- won 31-17 for the first of their three conference road playoff wins that led to the Super Bowl.

Funny, the real story of that playoff game was that Carson Palmer was hurt on his very first pass of the game by Kimo von Oelhoffen, rendering the Bengals without their star quarterback. They played the game with Jon freaking Kitna. Love the parenthetical, "motivated by Houshmandzadeh's shoe-wiping display," as if this was THE reason for the game's end result. It's garbage, and this writer should be fired.

More notes from the inane (this from CNNSI):

Pittsburgh players and fans revere the Towel, and why go there against a team you might see again in the playoffs? For me, it falls under the heading of unwisely giving your opponent extra motivation. I promise you, if the Steelers and Titans do meet again, that footage will be run on a continuous loop in Pittsburgh.

And the effects on the Steelers will be akin to Prince Adam raising his sword and bellowing, "By the power of Grayskull!"

Folks, losing is motivation enough. And...and, even if we were to buy this 100% wholesale, I have to argue the whole "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" thing. Say the Steelers are so motivated that they just look like they're about to tear Titan heads off. I have a feeling this works both ways. I doubt the Titan players will be running into the Cumberland River screaming, "They're just too motivated! Holy shit, abandon ship!"

If the Steelers beat the Titans in the playoffs, and it's a big if that they even meet, it will have nothing to do with a towel, unless Kerry Collins' hands are too sweaty and the towel boy does a bad job.

In fact, here is a clip that makes more sense than this controversy: