The Colts are playing the Jets today. To read the various sports pundits, the Colts should lose. People with money at stake, however, seem to be favoring the Colts. Probably, this has something to do with the fact that sports commentary is easier to write and more entertaining when you are taking a contrarian view – nevermind that the contrarian view seems to be the norm.
Maybe the Colts will will, maybe they’ll lose. But I’m awfully tired of this crap about how there is no other way to win in the NFL other than pound the running game up the middle and have a stifling defense. Obviously these aren’t bad things to have, but I think there is some nostalgia at work in the preference for three yards and a cloud of dust. Some kind of dim memory of guys with flat tops when Men were Men (insert “nervous sheep” joke here). Or something. There is probably some big media market and underdoggism at work with the Jets love as well.
Anyway, from listening to the sports punditry, I have learned that the Colts will crumble under the Jets defense and the team’s “soft” defense will be no match for the Jets’ punishing running game. (In these discussions, last week’s Ravens’ game was almost never mentioned for whatever reason.) Additionally, I have learned, Peyton Manning’s legacy will be forever ruined if he doesn’t win this game. (The goalposts on Manning’s legacy are forever being moved back.)
Well, whatever. The great advantage (or disadvantage) football punditry has over political punditry is that it is soon tested with a clear winner and a clear loser and you can mostly tell exactly why the game was won or lost.