How Did the Ex-Presidents Do In Jacksonville?

We can now render a verdict on how our two most recent former presidents perform as football prognosticators. Asked for a game prediction at Fox's Superbowl pregame show, former President Bush issued a terse "Patriots by 14." As it turns out, of course, New England didn't even cover the Vegas spread, so if you were putting your money where GHWB's mouth was, you lost.

Former Prez Bill Clinton, as always, triangulated the question, extemporizing about how if Philadelphia's D. played well, we could expect a close match. Precisely true, though I think the Man From Hope loses points for not actually projecting a winner and spread. Too bad former gridiron hero Jerry Ford is not taking a role in Tsunami relief: He'd have been good for some interesting pregame comments.

The close-game prediction points up another intriguing data point. Coming off a run of several years of good Superbowls, it's beginning to look like the boring blowouts of yore are gone for good. Is league parity responsible for that happy outcome? And if so, does that mean socialism works?

Comments

[Tim Cavanaugh]

ZZZZZ! I was making a joke.

[Jesse Walker]

I'm no football expert -- not even a football fan, really -- but I remember the 2003 Super Bowl. It was definitely a boring blowout. Especially compared to the year before.

[Mo]

Jesse, The difference is that there have been good Super Bowls for 3 of the last 5 years. Usually it's one good one for every 2 woofers. Who knows, maybe we're due for a decade of woofers as we revert to the mean.

[Gary Gunnels]

Tim,

Ever read the comic titled something like "The Ex-Presidents?"

[fyodor]

Maybe the ascension of the New England Patriots in their current form is mostly responsible for the seeming end of the SB blowout, since if you toss out their three victories, 3 of the last 4 were still decided by 15 points or more. Then throwout the Broncos' underdog victory against the Packers and you have one-siders going back to 1992, and then 6 off the previous 8 before that, which was of course was the heyday of the SB blowout.

[WSDave]

If you want football that's FUN, look into the arena game. Very few snoozers there.

[tpd]

Just after the game ended, I asked a gloating, hardcore dem/NE sports fan friend from MA if the back to back Patriots superbowls and the curse reversing Red Sox WS win helped ease the sting of the election loss.

Emotional whiplash is a fun thing to watch, even when you are dodging a half full beer can.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

This was a boring game despite not being a blowout. It was sloppy and there was no tension. And, Philly puttering away 3 minutes near the end of the 4th, in retrospect, turns out to have not been such a good decision.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

But it was not clear to me that all readers of hit
and run would know that. This is one of those
occupational hazards of teaching. The impulse
to teach never quite leaves you, which can be a
bit boring or even irritating for those around
one on occasion.

Comprendo, and I'm not accusing Paul Tagliabue of being a pinko, honest I'm not!

I do wonder whether the NFL can properly be considered as a single corporation rather than a cartel, given the structure of its constituent parts, its weird revenue schemes, and the unanimity with which all recent competitors (USFL, XFL, etc.) have bitten the dust.

[linda]

In a NYT article posted before the game ( "Secretary Rice, The New Globetrotter") it is mentioned that Rice told her aides the Patriots would win by 3.

[Mo]

Hey Tim, the AFL, Arena, is still alive and kicking. Lots of fun too watch to boot. Not to mention a 13 point lead can be overcome in 30 seconds. AFL is less like organized football and more like backyard football. It has its charm, especially in the months between Feb and Sept.

[Franklin Harris]

Hey Tim, the AFL, Arena, is still alive and kicking.

And the NFL owns part of it.

Just saying is all.

[Jose]

franklin harris, some of the NFL owners are also owners in the AFL. This is an important distinction. If nine people who invest in Company A, also invest in company B, it doesn't mean Company A partly owns Company B any more than it means Company B partly owns Company A.

[Answer Me This]

Yo Preacher Cavanaugh of the First Church of the Free Market, why your Rand-thumping congregation got no sense of humor?

I'm a heathen here, but hell, I know funny, and that joke was funny.

[bachwards]

It seemed liked Clinton was still in the midst of a campaign. I suppose he still sounds like that every time he speaks, but it was particularly ridiculous this time.

[Douglas Fletcher]

He is in a campaign -- he's campaigning desperately to keep us from forgetting and ignoring him.

[OPUS]

How much money did Clinton and Bush give to Tsunami relief? They never say! Clinton made at least 35 million in 2004. Bush who knows how much. I will only give when I know how much they gave of their wealth.

[Isaac Bartram]

OPUS

Shrub gave $10K and everyone said what a cheap sonofabitch he was. I don't know what Clinton gave but I'm sure he feels their pain.

[crimethink]

I suspect Bush's prediction can be attributed to bitterness about losing Pennsylvania even after the steel tariffs.

[Jim Henley]

Maybe the ascension of the New England Patriots in their current form is mostly responsible for the seeming end of the SB blowout, since if you toss out their three victories, 3 of the last 4 were still decided by 15 points or more. Then throwout the Broncos' underdog victory against the Packers and you have one-siders going back to 1992, and then 6 off the previous 8 before that, which was of course was the heyday of the SB blowout.

Gee, and if you toss out all the blowouts we've had nothing but nailbiters all the way back to Super Bowl V! Seems no less arbitrary.

[fyodor]

Jim Henley,

I used poor wording when I said to throw out the Broncos' close victory. My only point was that without the Patriots' close victories, the pattern hasn't necessarily changed much, if at all, and I stand by that. Put another way, what looks like a reversal of the Super Bowl blowout pattern may actually just be a pattern that has been brought to the event by the Patriots and therefore the one trend may not last longer than the other. We'll just have to see, since as Gary Gunnels has pithily pointed out, it's "useless" to speculate about the future! 🙂

Franklin Harris,

the fact that so many teams are looking for public subsidies of one kind or another is a strong indication of what the answer is

I think the explanation for why teams push for public subsidies has less to do with the salary cap and is closer to the answer to the question of why does a dog lick its nuts? Because it can!

[Jim Henley]

fyodor, I'd argue that the Steeler and Patriot losses in the 1990s were not blowouts. While the final scores gave the Cowboys and Packers a two-score margin, they were a far cry from the SF-SD game that preceded them or the Tampa Bay-Oakland and Baltimore-NYG snoozers. Winners do tend to repeat - witness the string of NFC East victories in the 80s and 90s - so I think it's a mistake to line out a possibly Patriot-specific phenomenon. But that's just me.

[fyodor]

I think it's a mistake to line out a possibly Patriot-specific phenomenon

Hmm, "line-out"? I just think it puts it in a different perspective if this indeed a Patriot-specific phenomenon. And while I would hesitate to predict it's over, one would suspect there's a lot more future without it than with it. (That's understatment, BTW!)

As to whether the Steelers and Patriot losses of the 90's were blowouts, obviously this is subjective to a large degree, and in fact I know I'm potentially on thin ice to include the Steelers loss of only 10 points. But I certainly remember them as blowouts, FWIW. I believe the Steelers scored mostly late, and I think Da Bears broke out and took command fairly early after things were close for a little while. NE might have scored most of their points late as well. I think TB-Oakland was probably close for as long as Chicago-NE before things went to hell, so I'm not sure why that would be so different. Especially since with Chicago-NE, it was more a matter of the inevitable finally coming to pass, while no one really expected TB to clobber Oakland like that. Anyway, in lieu of googling the whole damn thing, that's how I remember it!

[fyodor]

Okay, I did Superbowl.com and first I shall plead egg on my face for confusing the NE loss to GB with the NE loss to Da Bears. And I guess Pitt did get close towards the end after Dallas jumped off to a 10-0 lead making everyone expect it to be a laugher.

Overall, I would say that there does seem to be a trend in the last 10 years away from the type of uniquely bizarre blowouts experienced in 10 of the previous 12 years.