Super Bowl thoughts: The most watched rock band performance ever!

THE WHO at the SUPERBOWL was the most watched performance by a rock band in history!




I told myself that I would not write about Super Bowl XLIV since it had nothing to do with Boston sports, but I am now forced to make an exception. This one was very special on three levels.

1. Peyton Manning is not better than Tom Brady after all!

Of course, one could argue that Manning's numbers for the decade are better than Brady's. However, three Super Bowl rings vs. one ring speak louder than statistics. We can't say Brady is the best quarterback of the decade, but now we can't say that Manning holds that title outright. This loss was huge for Indianapolis. Clear favorites, they lost to a team that took repeated win-or-lose gambles that paid off handsomely. Somewhere Bill Belichek is smiling. Or maybe not. The Saints' win means that the Colts -- even if you count the Baltimore years -- have only two Super Bowl championships to their name. Having won three would have put them in striking distance of the all time great NFL Dynasties and certainly a close second to the Patriots' "Dynasty of the New Millennium." Simply put, it was one of the most exciting, unusual Super Bowl games ever played and the win was huge for Pats fans.

2. The commericals were better and funnier.

I have to admit, I usually don't watch Super Bowl games from beginning to end. When I do watch, it is because I care about the teams involved, especially the New England Patriots. It's a well-known fact that most Super Bowl games are predictable and boring. I find it obnoxious when people say that the best part of watching the big game is the commercials. Why watch at all then? When I am compelled to watch, I am usually affronted by the amount of sleaze that corporate America pours upon us. Whether it's a dozen-and-a-half Viagra commercials or constant innuendo directed at what is supposed to be a family audience, I do not find the commercials the most enjoyable part of watching the Super Bowl.

This slew of commercials wasn't that bad, however, and one had a message that is near to my heart -- one that was hyped by lots of pre-game controversy -- more so than any other Super Bowl ad in history.

Just a bit of background to this. As a pro-life activist, I get NARAL's weekly email bomb signed by Nancy Keenan. (My reason for subscribing is the famous adage by General Douglas MacArthur, "Know your enemy.") This week's witch screed from NARAL was entitled: "Throw a Penalty Flag Against CBS!" -- which is all about Tim Tebow's mom's "anti-abortion" commercial (that would not be noticed as being an "anti-abortion" commercial if it hadn't been framed as such by Focus on the Family). It's such a neutral, feel-good, pro-family ad that even the Orlando Sentinel opined on Monday: "Now we can ask the question — what was all the fuss about?"

The commerical, I was surprise to find, turned out to be tremendously understated and downright uncontroversial. Judge for yourself:



Here is another version:



NARAL (a friend of mine calls them "SNARL!") calls on all pro-aborts to "focus" their anger by "throwing a penalty flag on CBS." Not to get too excited about this though, NARAL's fund raising letter writers live in an alternate reality where the Tebow commerical is offensive, "anti-choice politicians outnumber pro-choice lawmakers in Congress," and one-in-four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease. (I won't post a direct link to NARAL's website, but you can follow the links from the phrases above.) Like the Tebow ad, the controversy will serve us well because it shows how extreme and out-of-touch these pro-aborts really are -- even among people who consider themselves "pro-choice." Also, you have to like the way they tie the Focus on the Family slogan to Personhood.

3. Super Bowl XLIV was the most watched event in human history!

NEWS ITEM: "CBS' coverage of Super Bowl XLIV was the most-watched program in an American television history, averaging 106.48 million viewers."

By extension, this means that the half-time show, featuring my favorite band of all time, The Who, was the most watched performance by a rock group in history. And that is the main reason why I succumbed to the cliché and downed Cheetos and beverages for 90 minutes waiting for the grand moment -- The Half Time Show! -- a 12-minute medley of five abbreviated Who songs. Even if you don't like The Who, the spectacle of a 50-yard long circular stage, that dwarfed the band and pulsated light, lasers and pyrotechnics, stole the show.

If you click on the YouTube videos above, you can read the comments, which are of course mixed. I wouldn't have it any other way. It was the "'Orrible 'oo" in all their glory! Are 100 million people all going to like the Who? I hope not! As Mike Myers and Dana Carvey pointed out in Wayne's World:

Garth Algar: Uh, Wayne?
Wayne Campbell: Yeah?
Garth Algar: Do you ever get the feeling Benjamin's just using us?
Wayne Campbell: Good call. It's like he wants us to be liked by everyone. I mean Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes everybody liked. They left that to the Bee Gees.

Just consider that the late, great Keith Moon and John Entwistle actually invented Led Zeppelin and you'll get the idea. I find it humorous that the most common complaint is that they were "too old" (ironic on several levels that I'll leave to true Who fans to understand) and that "Roger has lost the top end of his register."

What? Roger Daltrey has a "top end"? Since when? Have these people ever listened to a Who concert before? If not, go and buy or download Live at Leeds, Live at the Isle of Wight or watch the great rockumentary, The Kids Are Alright. This will forever dispel the notion that Daltrey ever had anything resembling a strong singing voice when performing live. True, the band managed to pull off some nice moments with Pete Townshend and John Entwistle providing the high harmonies in a controlled studio setting. It yielded them some sounding nice pop songs, yet with an edge. But this isn't the point of the band live. Not at all! Not even the watered-down latter-day version without their best drummer and bass player, Moon and Entwistle.

In Daltrey's own words circa 1978:

Our main ambition right now is to get back on the road with the horrible Who, the worst rock n' roll group in the world ... You couldn't pick four more horrible geezers to make the worst sound you've ever heard in your life.

And in the end, they gave us the most watched rock band performance of all time.

Not to be taken away.

Should CBS air the Tim Tebow Superbowl commercial?

This has nothing to do with Boston sports except for the fact that two Irishmen from the Boston Globe, Mike Ryan and Joe Sullivan, get the answer to the question exactly right. Another Globe story from today asks the question: "Could Tebow be a Patriot?"

Will Boston Sports Fans Determine Outcome of Senate Race?

Today's elections results may forever become known as "the slapshot heard 'round the world."

The Coakley/Brown race in Massachusetts has been heralded as the most important U.S. Senate election in recent history. The future of government run health care may hang on whether the Republicans can gain another seat that will break the Democrats' filibuster-proof super majority.

Scott Brown is not likely to become a conservative dream candidate, since he has backed a number of liberal issues in the past. But he'll instantly become one of the most well-known Senators if he wins, having the ability to work with the voting block of 41 Republicans to block Obama's far left-leaning agenda. He will likely give the Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union Address next week.

Even more notable is the role that Boston sports has played in this election. While Brown went hard after moderate, working class independents who dominate Massachusetts voters, Martha Coakley chose to dismiss her opponent's chances assuming the election was a lock once she won the Democratic primary.

Coakley bristled at the idea. Should she actually be seen "standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands" of hockey fans at the annual outdoor Winter Classic Bruins-Flyers game? Then she brought in John Kerry, Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama to campaign for her. Obama promptly insulted Brown's pick-up truck that is featured in a campaign commercial designed to appeal to the working class independents.

Then, in the greatest gaffe in Massachusetts' politics since a helmuted Mike Dukakis drove a tank, Coakley criticized Scott Brown for bringing in former New York Major Rudolph Giuliani to campaign, since Rudy is, of course, "a Yankee fan."

But what about Curt Schilling's support? He's "another Yankee fan!" according to Coakley. That brought on a comical spat between Schilling and Coakley. Later, Boston College and Patriots football great Doug Flutie appeared at rallies with Schilling to show his support for Brown.

If Coakley loses, people will remember that her poll numbers nose-dived after she stupidly insulted followers of the Bruins, Red Sox and probably got Doug Flutie fans riled in the mix.

These are the "smahtest fans in America" after all. The very fact that Coakley would insult their intelligence speaks volumes about her competency to hold a Senate seat. Let's see if she can snipe at Celtics fans in the waning hours of her campaign.

Martha Coakley calls Curt Shilling a "Yankee fan" - Curt responds

"I've been called a lot of things...but never, I mean never, could anyone make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn't know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could."

- Curt Schilling

This was after Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Democrat senatorial candidate derided Rudolph Giuliani's campaign for her rival, Scott Brown, by calling Rudy a "Yankee fan." When asked a about Curt Schilling's support for Brown, she responded that he was a Yankee fan too. She later said it was a joke. As they say in Mass: "Yeah, right."

Patriots 2009 Regular Season Round-up: "Why not us?"

The Patriots were statistically the best team in the AFC in the 2009 regular season.

Forget about the win / loss ratio. If we look at the Points-For / Points-Against ratio, the Pats narrowly beat out the Jets and Ravens as the best team in the AFC playoffs. The numbers bear this out.

AFC Playoff Teams / PF / PA / Ratio

New England Patriots / 427 / 285 / 1.4982

Baltimore Ravens / 391 / 261 / 1.4981

New York Jets / 348 / 236 / 1.47

San Diego Chargers / 454 / 320 / 1.42

Indianapolis Colts / 416 / 307 / 1.36

Cincinnati Bengals / 305 / 291 / 1.05

The Pats were the fifth best defensive team in the NFL

I had this conversation on the plane to Boston on Christmas day with two other Pats fans. I held out that the bottom line in determining the best defensive team is points against throughout the season. Some football purists might disagree in favor of a more complicated formula. But to me, it's just good horse sense. In baseball, a pitcher's worth is his ERA -- more so than his won / loss record. The rating of defensive half of a football team likewise ought to be determined by the number of points against. Anyone who wants to argue with that is welcome.

New England fans are usually optimists when it comes to the Patriots and Celtics and pessimists when it comes to the Bruins and Red Sox. This year, Pats fans not as sanguine as in 2007 and 2008 when they finished 16-0 and 11-5 respectively. A Pats' record of 10-6 doesn't seem like a Superbowl contender. But I disagree. With Wes Welker they were the best team in the AFC. Without him, the Pats have as good a chance as anyone.

Here are the final numbers:

Points Against

Jets - 236
Cowboys - 250
Ravens - 261
49'ers - 281
Patriots - 285

The Pats were the fifth best offensive team in the NFL


The Pats finished with the fifth best offensive numbers in the NFL and second in the AFC. There is no way we can compare this team to 2007, the greatest offensive team of all time. But one could argue too that the NFL is more homogeneous than it was two years ago. Here is how the numbers stacked up.

Points For

Saints - 510
Vikings - 470

Packers - 461
Chargers - 454
Eagles - 429
Patriots - 427

* Teams in italics are not playoff bound.
* Teams in blue are NFC teams

It's difficult to factor in the big differences in offense and defense in the AFC vs. the NFC. That is why the ratio of PF / PA is a better indicator. But for the foreseeable AFC playoff future, it looks like the Pats's home field advantage bodes well for them against the Ravens. I see it as an easy win. I'll post my numbers for all playoff games in a few days. The trip to San Diego is supposed to be the tough round 2 game that poses the biggest problem. I give the Pats a 50-50 shot against the Chargers even without Welker. Then looks like a Jets / Pats AFC championship game in Foxboro, which could be a laugher in favor of New England.

That's how I see it.

The Chargers are the team that stands in the way of a Patriots trip to Superbowl XLIV in Miami in February.

My 2009 AFC East Predictions

New England Patriots 13-3
Buffalo Bills 9-7
New York Jets 7-9
Miami Dolphins 7-9

The Actual Outcome

New England Patriots 10-6

New York Jets 9-7
Miami Dolphins 7-9
Buffalo Bills 6-10

It's obvious that the AFC East is much better than in 2007 when the Pats went 16-0. That softens the perception that the Pats are much worse. In fact, here I'll use the PF / PA effect again.

My Total PF / PA Prediction for 2009 Pats Games*

477 / 238

The Actual Outcome

427 / 285

My total PF / PA ratio is almost exactly 2 to1 strangely enough.

Even more strange is the fact that the actual outcome ended up being almost exactly 1.5 to 1.

* Note that I forgot to post a prediction in what ended up being a 59-0 win against the Titans in snowy Foxboro. That would have affected the Points For, but as it stands the effect on Points Against is null.

Final Analysis

The Patriots were wildly inconsistent this year. Given a performance reminiscent of one of their better outings, they can beat any team in the NFL. If they play just consistent with their average performance throughout the season, I have to say they have a better than even chance of making it to the Superbowl.

Red Sox 2010 starting line-up and pitching rotation

Projected Batting Order / Position / Career BA / Career OPS*

Jacoby Ellsbury / CF / .297/ .764
Dustin Pedroia / 2B / .307 / .825
Victor Martinez / C / .299 / .837
Kevin Youkilis / 1B / .292 / .878
David Ortiz / DH / .282 / .922
J.D. Drew / RF / .283 / .896
Adrian Beltre / 3B / .270 / .779
Mike Cameron / LF / .250 / .788
Marco Scutaro / SS / .265 / .721

This is an amazing defense as the Red Sox have potential Gold Glove winners at almost every position. After what was a good year in 2009 when they ranked third in the American League, it gives the Red Sox possibly the best defensive team in the AL.

Offensively, the Red Sox finished second or third in nearly every team category in 2009 -- a year in which the Yankees' bats dominated baseball. Despite losing Jason Bay, the Red Sox look about the same in 2010. The top two-thirds of the line-up will be fearsome on day one. Look for them to add a big bat sometime during the season and they will be a World Series contender once again.

* Note:-- Here I use OPS (On Base plus Slugging percentage).

Pitching Rotation / Career ERA

Jon Lester / 3.66
Josh Beckett / 3.79
John Lackey / 3.81
Daisuke Matsuzaka / 4.00
Tim Wakefield / 4.33
Clay Buchholz / 4.91

Simply, this is the best pitching rotation in baseball. Every starter except Clay Buchholtz has been a 15 game winner within the last three years. The flashes of brilliance in the last three years show promise of becoming more of the norm as Buchholtz will be 26-years-old this season. With the exception of Wakefield, who will be 44, this is a young pitching staff that could make the Red Sox contenders for years to come.

This is what will make fans happy in the long run. Pitching and defense wins World Series' Championships. The offense is good enough to get them to the postseason. A four man playoff rotation is good enough to get them all the way there. Theo Epstein needs to add just a bit more depth to the middle relief in the off season and the Red Sox will have the best team in years.

Welker drama in Houston

Your best offensive player has to leave the game with a knee injury in the first drive.

The Boston Globe immediately calls it a "nightmare scenario."

Oh yes, and Tom Brady has three broken ribs -- he has for several weeks. We just learned this today. Only Brady could throw for four touchdowns in the first half in last week's game with three broken ribs.

If my best player suffered a minor bruise in the first play of a meaningless game, I would take him out for the rest of the game. The predictions of the Patriots' playoff demise are premature. Even if the Welker injury is minor, Belichek will still win the award for the most second-guessed coach of the year award.