The Chicago Bears are going to the Super Bowl. That is an unlikely sentence.

Rex Grossman is leading the Chicago Bears into the Super Bowl. That is an absolutely ludicrous sentence.

It seems as if all of Chicago is ecstatic that the Bears are in the Super Bowl, and I am no exception. Chicago is and always will be a Bears town: no other team consumes the city's thoughts like the Bears. The Cubs would come close, except for that little detail that about one third of the city hates them. That aforementioned third cheer for the White Sox fervently, but Chicago's divided baseball loyalties prevent the same support the Bears enjoy. The Bulls have never really been at the forefront of Chicago's conciousness in seasons in which Michael Jordan was not on the team, and the Blackhawks' afterthought status can be solely attributed to one Mr. William Wirtz (an article for another day if there ever was one). So even though I've lived through six Bulls championship seasons, a White Sox World Series campaign, and a couple of feeble forays into the postseason by the Cubs (due to their futile history, or at least the last 100 years or so, the excitement generated by the Cubs reaching the playoffs would be fairly similar to another team reaching the World Series, since Cubs fans figure the NL Divisional Series is pretty much as good as it can get), I've never seen the city as excited about any game as much as this one, and people older than me are telling me that this is the most excitement since 1985, when I was only three and not the best judge of these types of things.

And there's that reference: 1985. In some way I feel bad for these Bears. There will be thousands of articles written about them this week, and I fully expect 75% of them to at least mention the 1985 team in passing (the other 25% will primarily be dealing with just what the fuck it is that Rex Grossman is thinking about out there on the field. The answer, incidentally: sluts. 2, 3, sometimes 8 at a time). If I were a member of this current version of the Bears, this fact that I was constantly being compared to the 1985 team would annoy me greatly. I would want my accomplishments to stand on their own, rather than being measured against a standard that would be pretty close to impossible to match.

I say it's impossible to match the 85 Bears accomplishments in the minds of Chicagoans not because of any particular deficiencies (which doesn't mean this team has no deficiencies; for example: Grossman, and his aformentioned preoccupation with sluts, when he should be more focused on things like reading a defense or feeling the pass rush), but because of the changing landscape of the NFL. Simply put, the NFL today lacks greatness, at least on a team level.

This immeasurable quality of greatness is one that interests me a lot. I am not sure what makes me think that the Bears, 49ers, Giants, and Redskins of the 80s were great, while the majority of the teams today are merely mediocre. Why should I choose to exult the 85 Bears while remaining fairly lukewarm on the current incarnation?

The immediate temptation is to say that free agency has changed the NFL, and the parity that followed hurt teams to the point that they will never be as good as they were before free agency. Though I do think parity plays a role in how I view teams today, free agency has not become enough of a factor to offset the advances in the complexity of the game, nor of the increases in size and speed of the players. The fact of the matter is that if you could somehow have the 1985 Bears play the 2006 version, I'd bet on this year's team. Brian Urlacher would probably be faster than everyone on the 85 team, except for maybe Willie Gault. Though Grossman makes questionable decision after questionable decision, he has faced defenses with much greater complexity than anything Jim McMahon (or Steve Fuller) saw all year. The current Bears would enjoy a significant size advantage on both the offensive and defensive lines. I do think Mike Ditka could kick Lovie Smith's ass in a fistfight, however. Still, if I think one team could beat another one head to head, why would I think the losing team great and the winning team just average?

Of course, in this specific instance, this conversation becomes moot if the Bears lose, especially if they lose badly. I've always been interested in what fans' opinions are about a team that manages to get to the Super Bowl, only to be utterly annihilated. Before parity, this seemed to happen in the Super Bowl every other year, usually to the AFC team, and I never knew how I would feel if I had been the fan of that team. Are you happy that your team managed to win its conference? I mean, that is a pretty impressive accomplishment, and one that doesn't happen too often. However, your favorite team still got embarassed in front of billions of people. Further, your team is only going to be remembered for getting blown out in the Super Bowl. I'm sure the 1989 Denver Broncos had a very nice year; they may have even beaten Cleveland in stomach-punching fashion that year, but the only thing I'm going to remember about that team is how the San Francisco 49ers continually abused them for the entirety of the Super Bowl. Same thing goes for the 1994 San Diego Chargers. How do their fans feel about these well-publicized dominations. Unfortunately, I do not know any Denver Broncos fans, and the only Chargers fan I know was without access to a TV in 1994, as he was working as a migrant farmer in California under the alias Javier Vazquez. As a result, I've never been able to ask anyone about this. Hopefully, I won't experience it firsthand on Sunday.

So I was going to watch the State of the Union last night, but instead decided to flip over to cable and watch Some Like It Hot (I'd never seen it before; a very funny movie, especially considering it was made in the 50's) and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band (a revelation if there ever is one. I think I vaguely knew that there was a movie called Sgt. Pepper's based on Beatles music, but I always assumed that the Beatles were actually in the movie and that it was made during that period of their history when they were appearing in more commercials and on more merchandise than Peyton Manning ever did. Little did I know that the movie came out in 1978, eight years after the Beatles broke up, and that Billy Preston is the closest thing to a Beatle that actually appears in the movie. Anyway, I say that this movie is a revelation because a)it explains how Aerosmith came to cover "Come Together" and Earth, Wind, and Fire came to cover "Got To Get You Into My Life," and b) it means that at some point in time, someone actually thought Peter Frampton (sans talking guitar) and the fucking Bee Gees were acceptable stand-ins for the Beatles. How must the Beatles have felt about all this? I have very little musical ability, and even I would be offended if I was replaced in something for the Bee Gees. And yet, this was the movie studio's great idea. The 70's are a fascinating time to me). Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the State of the Union address. It sounds like Bush pretty much just said, "Looking good, America." To which America pretty much said, "Feeling good, W." And then Bush sailed away on his yacht with his hermaphrodotic ex-hooker girlfriend. Or, you know, something. By the way, do Presidents give State of the Union speeches every year? Because if they do, I can't wait for next year's speech, entitled "You Are All Fucked, America, but I Don't Give a Shit Since I'll Be Gone in Less Than a Year."

Anyway, I don't bring up the State of the Union for any sort of political discourse, but rather because of something President Bush did during the speech. He actually gave a shout-out to Dikembe Mutombo during the speech. Yes that's right. Dikembe. Mutombo. Dikembe fuckin' Mutombo. Dikembe Mutombo of "who wants to sex Dikembe?" fame. At the State of the Union. And I had no idea and missed it. Who's planning these things? How was Dikembe Mutombo's presence at the State of the Union speech not widely known beforehand. Because if you want to put asses in the seats, Dikembe would put asses in the seats. I would absolutely have watched had I known Dikembe was going to be in attendance. Hell, how many CSPAN's do they got nowadays? Couldn't we have had one focus their coverage exclusively on Dikembe's attendance. And if not an entire channel, at least a little picture in the corner of the screen. I wouldn't get off the couch all night. There would be so many riveting questions. Is Dikembe tagging that woman sitting in front of him? Does he actually understand what the word hegemony means? Will he laugh uproariously for no apparent reason? Does he know that political groupies are not as commonplace as NBA groupies? Or better yet, are political groupies as commonplace as NBA groupies? These are questions we could have learned if CSPAN would have given us a Dikembe channel. Frankly, it feels like a wasted opportunity to me.

I am back

So I have arisen from my eternal malaise to comment on both the championship games this past weekend. (Eternal Malaise would be a good name for a band. They would probably have to be a shoe gazing band, or maybe some kind of stylish indie rock band who always wear three piece suits and sunglasses or something. Then again, it would be interesting to hear a band called Eternal Malaise sing nothing but happy pop tunes to an unnamed girl referred to only as "Baby." I guess there could also be a goth band with a similar name. You know what, I've made a decision: I would support a band named Eternal Malaise, regardless of the genre they play. Unless it's country. A guy's got to have his limits.) I've been meaning to get back to blogging, but it has been very difficult to tear myself away from my exotic life of sitting on my ass, watching TV, listening to music, occasionally working, and uh, more sitting on my ass. Also, I don't own a computer anymore, and this appears to be some kind of prerequisite for blogging (at least that's what people say; I've never been too adept at computers).

*As I'm writing this, the new Bloc Party single "I Still Remember" has come on the radio. I like it. It's on the lighter side, and it makes me think of Tom Petty for some reason, but with a kind of British accent. Anyway, I'm excited for their new album, as I really enjoyed their old one. I'd check out the new single if I were you*

Anyway, I realize it's been something like eight months since I last blogged, so as you can imagine would happen to such a dynamic individual, my life has changed greatly. For instance, now I occasionally drink wine and read books. I happen to enjoy doing this, but I'm not entirely sure it's not because I secretly wish to be pretentious. Anyway, I figured I'd let you know, just in case I compare someone to, I don't know, Godard or something. (And yes, I did have to wikipedia Godard to make sure that he's some kind of real person, but still: I'm sophisticated now, mother fuckers.) So that covers the changes in my life, now on to the football games, whose enjoyability happened to coax me out of blogging retirement.

I'll talk first about the Colts-Pats game, and save the Bears game for a later post. As for Colts-Pats, whew, what a game. It's hard to know where exactly to rank it, but it has to be pretty high up there. Last year's Colts-Steelers game had a slightly more exciting ending, but this one had more personal history, and once Manning removed his head from his ass after throwing the pick for a touchdown, this one had more of a back and forth feel to it then last year's game.

Though I didn't have a dog in this fight, I can say after the fact that I am pleased Manning finally was able to do well in a game against the Patriots. The Peyton bashing has always confused me. To me he's always seemed like a fairly likeable guy, the type of person whose failures should be greeted with pity, or at the worst indifference, but certainly not glee. At first I thought the Peyton bashing was more of a Boston thing. This may come as a suprise to some people, but it has been suggested before in the past that Boston fans may not have the most healthy outlook on sports fandom. I had theorized that the Colts-Pats relationship mirrored the Red Sox-Yankees relationship (although obviously for a much shorter period) in the minds of many Boston fans, except that in this case the Boston fans had the upper hand in this relationship, and dammit, Boston fans were going to enjoy having the upper hand for once. As a result, every failure of the Colts was met with a smug smile from Pats fans.

It certainly sounds like a nice theory, and it enables me to play armchair psychologist, which is always fun (here's a free diagnosis: you want to have sex with your mother), but it cannot be wholly correct. Sure, there may be some New Englanders (is this the right term? I never know what to call people from different regions; you got your -ers, -ans, and -ians: it's very confusing) who are subconciously projecting their frustrations at the Yankees on the Colts, but it's doubtful that that's the case with an entire fanbase, and even more importantly, it fails to address the fact that disliking Peyton Manning is more than a regional thing: people from all over the country are doing it nowadays.

As I said before, I find this confusing. The two most common complaints that are lobbed at Manning are that he is smug and that his commercials are on TV all the fucking time. First, I don't really mind the commercials. I think it is fair to assume that Manning did not do them for the money, but rather as some sort of PR move, as a way to make Manning appear as if he was an actual human being, rather than the football playing robot that he frequently came off as before this year. While I think that as a PR move it was a questionable to so overexpose Manning in such a short period of time, I actually enjoy several of the commercials, at least initially. Sure the commercials get played ad nauseam, but that's the purpose of commercials: to annoy the American public so much that their collective will is completely broken and they have no choice but to buy whatever product is being advertised (remember, I'm a marketing major). Blame the evil, evil corporations, not Peyton Manning. Also, Peyton gets bonus points for the one commercial with where he's wearing a fake mustache and talking about his laser rocket arm, because in that commerical I think he looks like the spitting image of Joey's creative writing professor on Dawson's Creek, the guy who had a recurring role in one of the later seasons after they went off to college and everyone stopped watching. (Holy shit, I just imdb'ed the guy, and his last name is Marino! This cannot be a coincidence. Anyway, here's the link, and please don't ask how I know that Dawson's Creek stuff: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0547800/.) Anyway, I think my initial point before I learned that is that the commercials don't really bother me.

The other thing I hear about Manning is that he is just too smug for people's tastes, but I've never really known what they are talking about. To me being smug means projecting an air of superiority, and I guess I've just never gotten that feel from Manning, mostly due to the fact that off the field he is completely useless. Things like making himself dinner or dressing himself are completely lost on him, and it always seemed to me like he was well aware of this. Sure, he throws a tight spiral and is able to recognize coverages, but the average American is better at thousands of different rudimentary tasks that Manning is. If anything, I get a country bumpkin vibe from Manning, and I'm not sure how a country bumpkin vibe can be construed as smug.

Now, what stands out to me about Manning (and what makes me like him) are his failures. I have no understanding of Tom Brady: the guy is far more attractive than I am, he never lets pressure get to him, he always knows what to do, and he went to a liberal, anti-Catholic, faux nouveau-riche institution that spent much of the early parts of the 20th century attempting to destroy much that I hold dear. In short, I am aware the Tom Brady is great (except for the Michigan thing), and that I am not. Michael Jordan was the same way. I am impressed at Jordan's accomplishments, but Jordan the person remains a complete mystery to me: I have no idea how someone could be that competitive; his competitive streak is so advanced beyond a normal person's that it is difficult to conceptualized. This is the same reason why Superman is the strongest superhero and yet he is not the most loved. Manning, in my eyes, is the complete opposite. He has failed. Many times. He is adversely affected by pressure. He gets rattled, and he lets the pass rush get to him. There was no point in yesterday's game where I felt confident Manning would pull it out. In fact, just the opposite occurred: there were many times where I was certain he would fail. None of this makes Manning a superior quarterback to Brady, it actually makes him inferior(which is a point that many Colts fans would disagree with), but it does make the guy more relatable, at least to me, and that made me hope he would ultimately prevail.

One final reason I was pulling for Manning: a deep deep hatred within the cockles of my heart (I have no idea what cockles actually means, but it seems to fit) for ESPN and their hype machine.
Manning certainly has choked in some games before, but don't we think that maybe having to answer a thousand questions a day about why he chokes in big games may have some kind of an affect on Manning's mental state? ESPN is able to make something true simply by saying it over and over again. It makes me question my belief in objective truth. Damn you, ESPN! Not only are you ruining the purity of sports, but you are also giving me philosophical conundrums.