Championship Week Lessons

REMEMBER TO SCROLL DOWN FOR THE COMPUTER SUPER BOWL PICK

Split the games last week against the spread and am now 6-4 for the postseason. Feeling bad about backing Pittsburgh, obviously. But I'm happy because my analysis proved accurate. When you single out a guy and the opponent burns him in exactly the way you advised, that's pretty good. Of course, it would have been better if I had determined that Brady and the Pats could burn Palamalu and the Steelers to this extent. Alas, I just didn't think they'd find the time against that pass rush. Now, of course, it makes sense. Near midfield. Two TEs. Max protect. Bang. That's the way the Pats always get their big strikes.

Why isn't Bill Cowher being taken to the woodshed? He was so badly outclassed and had his team so poorly prepared for the opponent. His game decisions were questionable. His stategy of trying to beat the Steelers without relying on his QB foolhardy (as my friend Steve Moyer points out, just play Tommy Maddox if that's your thinking). And the strategy of kicking the field goal from the two in the fourth quarter down 14 just doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny. Contrast Cowher's treatment to Herman Edwards' treatment last week. And are we going to hear any revisions to the criticism of the Jets end game strategy in light of the fact that he had a QB playing with a torn rotator cuff? Nope. (We've been telling you here since he got hurt that we were hearing his shoulder was really bad.) But we'll have more on this possible double standard later in the week in another Media Counter Punch.

It's also interesting to note the contrast between the media summation of the divisional games, when the running game was rightly credited as being determinative in three of the four matchups, to championship week, when the passing game and pass defense ruled. What? The Eagles won because they stopped the run and not because of their ability to pass? That's what's being said? Well then, I give up.

What about Pats-Steelers, where Brady was able to make big passing plays without throwing interceptions. Turnovers should not be lumped together, but always are. Remember, research shows that interceptions have a significantly greater impact on winning and losing than do lost fumbles. I believe this is irrespective of the return yards. There is a lot of speculation as to why this is true, but that's of secondary interest. The important thing is, it is true.

Visit Bud Goode's website, which you can find via the links area of my website. The bottom line is that his 2004 research shows that a lost fumble costs you three points but an interception costs you 5.55. So, if you throw one more INT than your opponent, you start 5.55 points in the hole, two 11.10, three 16.65, etc., etc. It doesn't mean you're going to lose the game by that much, it just means that you should be expected to lose the game by that much if other game factors remain equal. The trouble is that there aren't many single factors that come close to making up this kind of deficit.

This is the reason that I think the Super Bowl is going to be more hotly contested than most observers. Thankfully, my computer agrees for its own reasons, too (interception differential being a big factor in the programming). The Patriots generally win the interecption battle but will face one of the most mistake-free passers of our generation. If the interception battle remains even, expect a three-point game.END