did any of you know that jerome bettis is from detroit?

the fact that this is the primary story line of this year's superbowl should tell you how crappy it is going to be. seriously, how much time can espn devote to telling us that that the oldest player playing is from here. yesterday i counted at least 9 different stories using this angle on espn.com, cnnsi.com, and sportingnews.com. seriously, who the eff cares where the hell jerome bettis is from? do you think that he started the season telling himself, "i really owe it to the community of detroit to get to the superbowl this year, you know to give back something..." the truth is jerome bettis really doesn't care that the superbowl is in his hometown, and neither should you. anyways, let me tell you why this "jerome is from detroit" angle is such bad news for an enjoyable super-bowl.

1) this has nothing to do with the game. the only thing i can even remotely think of is that jerome bettis might be a little distracted. sorry, bettis has been in the league for a zillion years, i don't think having the super bowl in his hometown is a distraction. after all pitttspurgh is only a few hours drive from detroit. it's not like he hasn't seen his family at all this year.

2) bettis may be the oldest and most likable guy in the superbowl, but he is far from being one of the best. players that will have more of an impact in superbowl XL than jerome bettis: shaun alexander, ben rothlisba;lkd, matt hasselbeck, hines ward, troy polamalu, jerry porter, walter jones, heath miller, matt strong, joe jurevicius....i could go on, but i won't. my point here is that a scrub like otis anderson was more valuable to his supebowl team than bettis is to his. leadership, lockerroom presence, blah blah blah...i think we know how i feel about all that crap. anyways, all this leads to...

3) we can't help but be disappointed when jerome bettis doesn't even run for 80 yards. all this hype is doing is making a really likable player into an overexposed one.

i know that you've heard this screed before, but the last team to truly dominate the league was dallas in 93...maybe baltimore in 2002, but i can't give it to them because their offense was so mediocre. not that i mind the trend of competitive games in the superbowl, but sometimes it's cool to see a team like the niners in the eighties or the cowboys in the nineties put up fireworks. you see, i watch sports because i like watching football players execute. i could give two shits about them trying hard. if i wanted to see people trying hard, i would go to one of the strawberry fields in oxnard and watch immigrants try to feed their families in mexico. that's trying hard. anyways, that's why it was so disappointing to see the colts lose. they seemed to have that air about them, but in retrospect, it's painfully obvious that the fall short of the mark of true football greatness. the only hope that i have for this year's game is that it features two quarterbacks who can fling the rock around when the conditions are right. let's hope that defense fails in this year's game.

the final point is, last year we had such better storylines with T.O. coming back to make a difference in the game and the pats going for dynasty status, both story lines that actually had something to do with football. this year we get old and cute. way to go detroit.

anyways, not that this matters since i don't know a goddammed thing about football, but i was going with the steelers at first. seemed logical since they have all the mo, but it seems like everyone and their mom is taking pittsburgh. and gamblor commands us, when everyone in the room is going one way, you go the other. not that i think that seattle is that much better a team than pittsburgh, but they do have a better offensive line than pittsburgh, which really should make a difference. so i'll go ahead and take seattle straight up to win.

p.s. for an amusing satire on the bettis story angle, check out cracked.com's espn spoof.

No comments: