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.