Halo 3 Auto-Update

Yesterday the good folks at Bungie dropped the first auto-update for their stud title, Halo 3. The main focus of this update, at least for gamers, is that it is supposed to "fix" the issues in melee that occurs when what a gamer sees is them performing a beatdown first but then dying, while their opponent gleefully skips away.



If you'd like a whole "complicated" breakdown of what the issue was and how it was fixed, feel free to read about it here. For a further breakdown you should also listen to Bungie's latest podcast.

My first hands-on experience with the update came last night. I tested it out myself with a few friends, to see if we could see a difference. We did the obligatory "shoot each other three times and then go for it" test to see if it worked. It did.

The update hopes to eliminate the complaining and gnashing of teeth caused by people who feel they are wronged, and choose to blame the game for poor play or missed opportunities. Truthfully, what will really happen is that people will still have the anguish of defeat but will have a better understanding of why.

And after extensive testing myself, I would have to agree with that assertion. What has been removed is the cursing and utterances of "das bullshit," replaced with the giddy girlish giggling that comes with simultaneous beatdown deaths.

So, overall, I have to say that the update was very successful in clearing up any issues I personally had with multiplayer -- though the night overall was a bad experience playing. I'll sum it up by warning my opponents that camping makes you sterile... get some skill, bishes. ;)

Best Nintendo titles you've never heard of (#1)

This article is the beginning of a mini-series in which I will detail lesser-known games that fell through the cracks, as well as upcoming games that may be on their way to falling through the cracks. If things go well, I will add more sections to the mini-series, including cancelled games.

Stunt Race FX
Late in the life-cycle of the Super Nintendo, the advent of modification chips in game cartridges was introduced. These chips were used for higher processer calculation speeds, which allowed for things such as 3D graphics to be used in some games. The most popular of these chips was the "Super FX" chip.

Between the Super FX chip and its successor, the Super FX 2 chip, 15 games were planned and developed. Only 7 of these 15 were ever released for the Super Nintendo*.

The second title released was racing game called "Stunt Race FX." Despite being a first-party Nintendo title, was not marketed well, and sales suffered in the United States because of this. This came as a surprise to many, as Shigeru Miyamoto was one of the lead designers, notable for Super Mario and Legend of Zelda fame. His games were known for their popularity and success. But this games' failure was not in its gameplay -- in fact, the game received mostly high reviews in gaming magazines.

Stunt Race FX, as the "FX" in its title suggests, utilized 3D graphics and environments. Players could choose between four vehicles, a COUPE, F-TYPE, 4WD, and 2WD, as well as five racing modes. Players could use a fifth car, the TRAILER, only in a BONUS mode.



As is the case with many first-party Nintendo titles, some notable Nintendo characters make cameos in the game -- with Mario, Fox McCloud (of Star Fox), and Kirby appearing on billboards in certain levels. Also, the Arwings from Star Fox fly overhead in one of the night levels.

Despite its poor performance in North America, the game remains a cult classic for hardcore gamers and those who happened upon it in rental stores and gave it a chance.

While it is considered a celebrated title more than decade after its release, it is still not widely remembered. But fear not, Stunt Race FX fans, as is the case with many previous generation Nintendo titles, there is hope that it may reappear on the Nintendo Wii's Virtual Console, downloadable for anyone willing to shell out the $6 for it. Though the Virtual Console is usually limited to widely successful games, and it may take a bit of luck for Stunt Race to show up.

* Super Mario FX was a developing game for Super Nintendo. After five frustrating years of development, however, Nintendo was not pleased with what was accomplished. The game was repackaged and redesigned into what begame Super Mario 64, released on the Nintendo 64.

Hey Apple, get off your ass (and your high horse) and make native iPod support for Linux already...

I've had enough. I haven't exactly gauged how much of this post is because of my bias, but it is obviously what made me initially aware of this "problem," and was caused me to care about it.

You see, I've been using Linux for a little over a year now (Ubuntu, the equivalent of a toe-dip over from Windows into the ocean of Linux). But, unlike most people, I didn't take the plunge into the whole iPod thing until this past Christmas... and I'm already a fanatic.

My evil little device is named the iPod Touch, and it is fantastic. I was initially drawn to it because of the whole Internet Browsing aspect of it that wasn't in previous models. But when I found out that Touches could be "jailbroken," allowing third-party applications to be installed on it, I was hooked.

The problem is that currently, there is no fool-proof method for syncing an iPod Touch with any Linux distribution. For previous models, there are several methods, such as amarok and gtkpod. Amarok is a stand-alone media player application that is capable of syncing to a previous generation iPod, and gtkpod is an application exclusively used for transferring files to iPods. That's all fine and well, but it does me no good.

Now since I wasn't using Linux and didn't have an iPod, I don't know how long it took for those with Linux to be saved by the advent of these applications.... but I'm not patient enough to wait... Linux needs its own iTunes.

From what I know, Apple's stance on this is that they don't want to risk their install-base "waking up" and realizing that they can trade their Apple Unix experience for a (typically) free experience by using a Linux distribution such as Linux. Shame on you, Apple. Do you really believe that your users are that stupid? They know what else is out there, but pick you because you're "stylish" or something. In fact, in similar situations, the opposite is the reality. If a Linux user had no other choice, they'd probably turn to (gasp) Windows... mainly because they probably already have a licensed copy of it which came with their computer.

This is partly speculation -- the only real scenario I could envision which would keep Apple from lending a helping hand to their brother in Unix. Well... except for that Apple probably envisions that Linux users aren't a big enough percentage to consider.

For the minimal effort it would take to effectively PORT iTunes over to Linux, Apple would see the money pour in. With the advent of song, movie, TV show, podcast, and all other type of downloads iTunes is now capable of doing, their numbers would see a nice bounce with the addition of the obviously tech-savvy and tech-embracing Linux population. And with the new feature of movie RENTALS through iTunes... I, someone who would've before never downloaded a movie off the service, have my interest piqued. Let's not forget the added amount of iPod themselves that would be sold with Linux users no longer looking for a Linux-friendly alternative.

Apple, you've made some stupid decisions in the past when it came to alienating and excluding people (remember all the Mac-exclusive ports they used to sport because of their deep-seeded fear of Microsoft-ism?), but this is the worst. I could go into the endless reasons, but I've already written papers on this subject... so I'll end this by merely scolding you, Apple.

Apple, Apple, Apple, your segregation of the Linux community is indirectly helping your enemy. Syncing my iPod is the only reason why I even still have a Windows partition. You tossing us Linuxers a toss may keep some from potentially jumping to Apple, but more likely are giving them reason to jump to Windows, which is WORSE than losing your own customers. Your anti-Microsoft roots was born not in building your own base but dare people to "Think Different." By forcing those who with to think differently to think Apple or think nothing, you're failing. It's the 90s all over again.

Pretty please make me own personal iTunes? Until then, I hate you. Thanks for the iPod. :-*

A post-Super Bowl Patriots blog post 5 pages too long.

If you're looking for doom and gloom you'll be sadly disappointed. However, if you're looking for sugar-coating or a silver lining, you will also be sadly disappointed. Just my exaggerated bias... possibly one-notch lower than complete fanboy babbling... whatever a combined 25 minutes of half-sleep did to refresh and lift my spirits.

Overconfidence. If you listed the qualities of New England sports fans, it wouldn't make the cut for the short list. Despite two titles in the last four seasons, any Red Sox fan who's personally experienced their string of inexplicably bad luck will never forget that feeling. Sure, some exceptions come to mind. (I'm talking about you -- idiot in a Boston bar who customized the Greg Oden Celtics jersey for the 2007 Draft Lottery.)

It's never been like this, though. At least locally... everyone thought the Patriots would win this. Not everyone picked the Patriots (Jon Meterparel), but everyone thought they would win. Callers to radio shows made predictions like 62-7, 35-10, 42-3 Patriots, and were unchallenged, yet any caller who predicted even a 1-point Giant victory was lambasted for reasoning.

I should know -- I was one of them. I called a rare overnight local show and predicted 31-17 Patriots. Granted, I got my score from a Madden "supersim." But I defended it tooth and nail. I even smugly offered up a stat to help any Giants fans who wanted to defend a Giants' victory prediction. "The last 5 times two teams who played in the regular season met again in the Super Bowl, the loser of the first matchup is 4-1 in the last 5." I never thought it would prove prophetic. Despite my best efforts, I was overconfident. I couldn't help it. I couldn't see the Giants winning. If anything, their first matchup would benefit the Patriots in the rematch. I was overconfident, and it bit me in the ass. I will never let it happen again.... I hope.

I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm not upset. I'm not angry. I'm sick. I'm still literally nauseous. When the nausea began when the Patriots still had a 7-3 lead, though it felt like they never led in this game. When Kyle Boss broke free to the tune of 45 yards, every Patriot fan knew the Giants were going to score. It would likely be 7 points, but at least 3. And it was 7. And even when the Patriots marched right back three possessions later and scored, I still felt sick. They took 5 minutes off the clock, as much as they probably could have, and scored a touchdown, the most they could have gotten, but it wasn't enough. The lead was still one score, and could not be tied. And more importantly, there was way too much time left. But it was a factor out of the Patriots control. We all knew it, and we were sick about it.

And that sickness quickly got worse. During the Giants next drive, which began with 2:39 left on the clock, the Patriots had every opportunity to close the door. And uncharacteristically, they couldn't. There was a span of about six plays where the Patriots had at least three chances to basically end the game.

First, Eli overthrew his receiver, and Asante Samuel almost picked it off. He had to juggle catching the ball and getting two feet down, and seemed unable to accomplish both simultaneously... the ball bouncing off his fingertips. Okay, that's fine, at least it's a botched play.

Second, Eli Manning scrambles for about five yards and is tackled by Adalius Thomas. He apparently fumbles, and recovers it himself. This play was a bit sketchy though... because I have no idea how you call that a fumble, he was clearly down. (Although it seemed FOX had no plans of mentioning that.) And if it was indeed a fumble, I'm not sure how Thomas's arms lose a battle with Manning's legs for the ball. Oh well.

And finally.... do I even need to mention it? It'll probably go down in highlights and history as "Eli's Escape Act" or something cheesy like that. It is the defining moment of this Super Bowl. The Patriots had Eli in their grasp, though sloppily, but were going to slam the door shut. And just when you thought he was down and out, he breaks free and makes the unlikeliest of throws to David Tyree, who makes the unlikeliest of catches. (If you didn't see it, I'm not explaining it... because you HAVE TO SEE IT.) I think it was a microcosm of the entire game.

Perhaps if I would have been more clear-headed, I could've pointed out the similarities between this Super Bowl and the movie "Freaky Friday." If you held a gun to my head, I can't give you any statistical reasoning behind it... but Brady and Manning switched bodies. Their numbers were eerily similar... as were most other of the "feeler" statistical categories. Both teams were 50% on third down and the time of possession was less than a one minute difference. But it was never that close. The Patriots had a lead for most of the game, and yet were never that close to being truly ahead in this game. It was uncanny.


And what makes it worse is this whole 18-0 factor. Had this team been, let's say, 14-2, this is no big deal. Every season one team loses the Super Bowl. Granted, the Brady and Belichick losing is a big deal. But it isn't all that historically significant. Being undefeated and losing here and now is huge. This team is a punch line, a joke. Choke artists. Forget all the talk of (one of the) greatest teams ever. Not winning the Super Bowl disqualifies you from being in that conversation. It's the main pre-requisite.

Is that unfair? Maybe, but not necessarily. But it's the way it is. It limits the possible number from 84 or more to a slim, sexy 42 possibilities. But it may not make it accurate. For instance, let's say, just for this example, that it is understood that the 1990 Giants are the best team ever. They aren't, but go along with it. They beat the Buffalo Bills 20-19, on a missed field goal ("wide right") by Scott Norwood.

So if the 1990 Giants team is the best ever, then it is possible that the 1990 Buffalo Bills is the 2nd best team ever. They probably aren't, but wouldn't even make a list of the top 25, even if they deserved to be on it, because they didn't win the Super Bowl. Why am I making this example, you ask? To defend my should've-been but never-will-be 2007 Patriots. If you list the top 10 NFL seasons of all time, you may still find the Patriots on that list, though probably in the bottom 5. Does that mean that the Patriots are worse than every team ahead of it, head-to-head? Not necessarily. But they will be excluded, right or wrong, because they didn't finish the job.

That made this game all too significant for the Patriots. If the Giants lost, it's no skin off their back. I'm sure they would have been disappointed. But they wouldn't become historical examples. They were a double-digit underdog, and weren't supposed to win. That lessens the pressure (akin to the sentiments of Keith Foulke and Kevin Millar of the Red Sox). The Patriots, however, were in an all or nothing situation. Famous or infamous. No middle ground. That's infinite pressure.

Statistics aside, the Patriots were outplayed in every phase of the game last night: coaching, quarterbacking, rushing, passing, play calling, offense, defense, special teams, penalties, you name it. But, while they were outplayed, it wasn't the worst they had been outplayed all year. They were outplayed by the Eagles, the Ravens, the Colts, and arguably the Giants the first time they met. But, even though they were outplayed, they were able to out-talent the other team enough to just score enough points than the other team.

If games were decided by which team played up to its potential the best, this Patriots team would be no better than 11-5 and would not have even been playing last night. They didn't look their best vs. the Colts, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, and Jets. But up until this point it didn't matter.

And in this game, being outplayed could've been overcome as well. Even in the games they had been outplayed, they had no trouble scoring. In fact, this was the only time all season the Patriots failed to score at least 20 points. For that reason, I truly believe that the Patriots defense had been, at least partially, only been worried about keeping the other team's score lower than what the Patriots offense could muster, and not necessarily stopping teams. Just keep them below what Brady and the offense put up. And that had worked, until last night. Keeping the Giants to 17 points was a good performance, but they were clearly the 2nd best defense on the field last night.

Please don't get me wrong, there had been times that the Patriots have looked amazing defense, despite what Emmitt Smith and others on ESPN want to lie to you about. The defense on the AFC Championship looked like an improved version of the "bend but don't break" defenses of a few years ago. There were just some games (Philly, Giants Round 1) where you were a bit concerned about them.

As is the custom for New England sports fans, we must seek out a scapegoat. As for in-game scapegoats, I have two distinct ones throbbing in my brain: Going for it on 4th and 13 and Ellis Hobbs vs. Plaxico. I won't get into either right now... I could write on each topic for pages and pages. Maybe I will later.

But otherwise, our eyes turn to those who proclaimed the Patriots to roll in this game. Sure there were radio hosts and other pundits like Pete Shepherd, Mike Adams, Boomer Esiason, Aaron Schatz and many others, but that's their job. They made predictions, and had 20 hours a week to form and defend them. My only beef with them is that (for the most part) they let callers go unchecked with their crazy predictions. I mentioned before 62-7. I wasn't making that up. Some caller said that Moss would have two touchdowns, as would Welker, Watson, and one for Stallworth, and said he was being as objective as he could... hopefully with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. I mean them no ill-will by mentioning them, it's my fault for letting their honest thoughts get my hopes up.

But I do intend ill-will towards others, many of whom are employed by the dreaded 4-letter sports network. If being 18-0 makes losing the slightly Super Bowl worse, what makes THAT worse is hearing the handful of people who picked against the Patriots out of fear, hatred, bias, or just for attention beat their chest about how they were so brave and smart. Sure, I pick the Patriots more often than not, and in a close game, I'm more likely to pick against teams I dislike, but I don't get paid to do it. And if I did get paid to do it, I wouldn't get paid six-figures to do it... Merrill Hoge. (In the immortal words of Ray Lewis -- "great talent, great talent, don’t ever get me wrong," but for someone who does as much film study as he does, he does a lot of posturing on TV, and ultimately sounds like an idiot more often than not.)

Do you really think that Hoge and Meterparel truly thought the Giants would win? I doubt it. Merrill is a Steelers guy. That's fine. God knows deep down inside I wanted the Seahawks and Bears to win the last two Super Bowls. But deep down inside I also knew the Steelers and Colts would win. Disliking a team is fine, but you're paid to be objective.


As for the Jon Meterparels of the world, that's just their gimmick. They need one, so they're not exposed for the frauds they are. Same shtick, different local team. I have no reasoning as to why Meter is this way, but he sounds like he'd be a decent "bad guy" wrestler. He could go out to the ring and talk about how the fans smell and are dumb, so he can get booed and get a high off of it and go back to his dressing room and touch himself. Then he'll pack it up and go to the next town and do the same. Sadly I don't think he has the size to be a pro wrestler.

You may have been wrong about the Cleveland Indians, Colorado Rockies, Jacksonville Jaguars, and San Diego Chargers, but you certainly got the Giants pick right. Take a bow, Meter. Maybe someday Boston College will be significant enough to be in a game somebody cares about, and people around here will pay attention and root for them. Then you'll have a real conflict of interest. Until then, you can just hide behind the skirts of your hosts when someone calls in to challenge you. And then you three can snicker and laugh about your little gimmick while you braid each other's hair and paint each other's nails.

Sadly, Meter isn't the worst of all. That crown goes to Mercury Morris. I mean... the nickname fits. Some of the things he says make me wonder if he's truly from another planet, or if he's just been exposed to the chemical element for a prolonged period of time. I don't think he realized that he was in a no-win situation. While I'm not sure he outright picked the Giants, it shouldn't have mattered to him. If the Patriots win, the 1972 Dolphins are no longer "special." They're not the only home-owners in his fictional "neighborhood" of undefeated teams. He claimed that if the Patriots were to go 19-0 they would have their own smaller house next door to the Dolphins.



But looking at the flip side, the Giants winning makes Morris no longer relevant. Sure, the Dolphins are still alone in their neighborhood. But if there's no talk of the Patriots going undefeated anymore, it means that two days from now there will be no reason to talk about Mercury Morris. Morris challenged the Patriots to join him, almost trying to intimidate them, saying that he welcomed them to match the Dolphins mark, and that if they got there he would be in a tuxedo waiting for his "bride." Luckily for him he was left waiting at the altar, but hardly jilted.

I guess if I were to draw any silver lining from this season being over, it's that Morris will finally be silenced. The guy used (and mixed) so many metaphors over the past 3 months, it's enough to make you wonder if he's on drugs your head spin.

Okay, okay, enough posturing on the scapegoat topic... who do you think I am, Merrill Hoge? I'll go outside the box on this one, and conclude that two huge factors in this loss being so historic are Baltimore Ravens linebacker Bart Scott and whichever Ravens coach called that timeout. This game, more than any other all season, the Patriots should've lost (besides the one last night). If they lose that game, they're a 15-1 team, and 15-1 teams generally aren't undefeated (I think). Without either Bart Scott's boneheaded tantrum or that coach "illegally" calling timeout, this Patriots team is now 17-2, and could fade into the sunset.

Whenever your team doesn't win the championship, it's natural look at the team and look for things to improve upon. If you didn't win, there obviously must be something that must be done differently. It's a unique situation when a team without a blemish on their record just suddenly collapses at the finish line. I know the team has flaws, but it's hard to look at the team, personnel-wise, and target certain areas that made this team insufficient to win the Super Bowl this year. They were more than good enough, and were more than deserving.

It doesn't mean that this win was a fluke, and that the Giants were not deserving as well. They truly were. They could hang with the Patriots, obviously better than any of the 30 teams in the NFL. But do I think that if these two teams played 10 times the Giants would win 5 times? Hardly. The Giants would be lucky to win 3 or 4 times, but no game would be won by a margin of more than one touchdown. They were that good of a matchup. They were 1-1 vs. each other, overall scores tied at 52 apiece. But you don't get rings or trophies for winning on Week 17.

Even if I can't target personnel within the Patriots that need to change, there will be some. As for retirements, it is not a huge impact. On offense, I think that Troy Brown and Kyle Brady will both hang it up. Troy Brown had been my favorite active Patriot up until this year (when he was supplanted by Wes Welker, the white Troy Brown). He will probably always be my favorite all-time Patriot. He only played in one game this year, which was sad in itself. As for Kyle Brady, he was a solid backup for Watson, and a great blocking Tight End. He was a one year Patriot, but you'd be lying if you said as a Patriot fan you didn't enjoy hearing "Brady to Brady" on the rare occasion he would get passed to.

As for defense, the only retirement I see happening is a huge one -- Junior Seau. He, more than any of the other 52 guys on the roster, I wanted to see get a ring. He's probably the most notable and accomplished non-quarterback in the league without a ring... check that, probably the most notable and accomplished player in the league without a ring. No one in New England wants him to retire, nor does he, but he would be 40 next season if he played. There's always a possibility... hell, we were saying this exact same thing last year.


As for major free agents who could possibly leave the Patriots, there's Asante Samuel and Randy Moss. I truly feel that Asante is too eager to "get paid," and that his Pro Bowl-caliber year this season did enough to price him out of New England. As for Randy Moss, call me naive, but I truly believe he'll be back next year. He came closer this year to winning a Super Bowl than he ever had prior. And, whether he stays or goes, the Patriots will be the clear favorite to win the Super Bowl next season. Like his former Minnesota counterpart, Kevin Garnett, I think he'll realize that he's already made enough money in his career, and it's time to stay on a good team and win.

(And for those of you who heard Tom Curran reporting that Moss may have talked his way out of town with his postgame comments about the Patriots being "outcoached," I've heard the tape and it's a non-issue. It's not even close to tantamount to things Richard Seymour has said in the past.)

To put this in perspective, this is a horrible loss. Two years ago, it was a horrible loss... Brady's first loss in the playoffs ever. The aura of invincibility was gone. Last year was slightly worse, blowing a 21-3 lead (21-6 at halftime) to lose to the hated Colts, and watching them go on to win the Super Bowl against the overrated Bears (2004 Red Sox comparisons anyone?). The only remaining aura of invincibility was gone -- we have Manning's number and he can't win the big game.

But this year is the worst of all. While 21-3 was the biggest deficit overcome by any team in conference championship history, it wasn't the biggest choke in all of sports. It wasn't even the biggest choke in all of football history. (I'm talking about you, 1992 Houston Oilers.) This year is different. Close score or not, this is easily the hugest choke in football history. In fact, it is the hugest choke in sports playoffs history.

While that is painful enough, the salt in the wound makes it even more unbearable. This being crowned as the worst choke in sports history supplants a very recent infamous choke, which will make New Englanders weep. Feel free to disagree with me, fans, but 2004 Yankees, you're off the hook. If anyone actually reads this blog, I'm sure I'll hear horrible feedback about that line, but I stand by it. This is infinitely worse. Choking to a New York team is bad enough, in the process saving the ass of another New York team makes it complex enough that it's giving me migraine.



And depending on if you disagree with me or not about that last point, this next point will either make you more pissed or you'll hopefully agree more. Even though I myself was once one of these people, it's time to give it up folks: stop denying the Yankees-Patriots connection. While the Red Sox-Colts connection is a bit more debatable (excluding the 2006 season, that's uncanny in my opinion), this one is getting clearer and clearer each season.

Think about it. I'll spare you going down the rosters and talking about how Bruschi is Paul O'Neil and all that garbage. It's pointless. Unlike most people, I have no problem with Brady walking through New York wearing a Yankees hat. (No one seems to have a problem with David Ortiz being a Packers fans, myself included, and I hate the Packers. I know it's different when it's New York, but still.) What I do have a problem with is Jeter supporting Brady. While I don't necessarily hate Jeter the way I used to (because of A-Rod), I still don't want him rooting for the same things as me.

It's hard for people to get perspective on what it's like outside of New York and Boston. But there's no argument that the Yankees are the most hated team in baseball. There's also no argument that the Red Sox are the second most hated team in baseball. But then they play each other (especially in the playoffs), everyone outside of the two areas are immediately nauseated. But they watch, and they enjoy it, because the games are always spectacular.

It's the same way with football. The Patriots are the most hated team in football. The Colts are also hated, but not necessarily the second most, unlike the Red Sox. But when they play, fans of other teams have to suck it up and root for the Colts. And as much as they don't want to watch, they know it'll be a great game. It isn't just those two... there are other minor players like San Diego (Cleveland Indians) and Pittsburgh (Anaheim Angels) who occasionally like to switch things up, but the Colts and Pats are the main players.

So, naturally, when the Patriots were in this game, no one truly them to win. A lot of the people predicting (players, TV pundits, radio hosts) picked them to win, because they were the favorites. And some people "wanted" them to win to see an undefeated team, but if they could swap out the team for any other team in the league (besides their own if they were an active player), they would've done it. They were the smart pick, and for that reason, the popular pick, but it didn't mean that people liked the Patriots and were happy that they appeared to be on their way to winning again.

And when they lost, people were happy. 30 of the 31 NFL fan bases were laughing at the Patriots. The other was (and is) too euphoric to laugh. But once they come back down to earth, they will be laughing as well, and the loudest.

Surely, a lot of credit was given to the Giants, and rightfully so, but people enjoyed the opportunity to kick the Patriots when they were down. Emmitt Smith, as mentioned before, claimed that everyone knew that the Patriots defense was the "weak link." Excuse me? The Patriots defense was fourth in yards per game allowed AND fourth in points per game allowed. Weak link? I supposed in comparison to the historic offense they had.

Then there's Steve Young, who said that if you looked at the month of January and compared these two teams, the Giants were better. Then a few minutes later proclaimed this to be the biggest upset in football history. Huh? Don't those two statements kind of... conflict? Oh well.

As embittered as I sound about this whole situation, I'm not as worked up about this as I may sound, and whatever I was, writing this really helped me to make peace with the situation. I'm going to dread next season, and having to live with the historical impact of being a fan of the biggest choke team in history. It almost seems unfair that the Yankees, the luckiest franchise of all time, only had the title for a little longer than 3 years.

Either way, I truly want to congratulate the Giants for winning the Super Bowl, and their fans. You truly deserved it. While I still believe this game was winnable, and in control if the Patriots could've closed the door, the Patriots didn't "beat themselves." The Patriots still had the talent and several opportunities to win despite all the things the Giants did right. But they didn't, and the Giants are the rightful champs. They executed when the Patriots didn't, and they won when it counted the most.

I'm excited that the Boston-New York rivalry has a new chapter, and a new participant. That being said.... this will be the longest 11 days of my life..... (Feb 15 - Red Sox pitchers and catchers report.)