Joe Ellison
Last week New England and Carolina proved once again that in the National Football League, defense wins championships. But their score results have left many fans wondering if now we're primed for a boring Super Bowl Feb. 1. Have no fear fans, because the only boring Super Bowls are blowouts, and this game should not be one. If all else fails and you still can't get excited about it, add your share to the millions of dollars that are bet legally and illegally on the Super Bowl, and you will become quickly interested.
Regardless, as always there are some good stories involving these championship-caliber teams. On one hand you have New England, the Super Bowl winners of two years ago who are carrying a 14-game winning streak. On the other hand, you have Carolina who was 1-15 two years ago and just completed the biggest turnaround in NFL history.
The best thing you get from both teams is strong physical play. There are no superstars on these clubs, and although it sounds corny, they show great camaraderie and exhibit what team sports are all about,.
If that's not enough to get you going, you can always tune in to the Super Bowl commercials which this year are being broadcast for a reported $2.25 million for each 30-second spot.
In the meantime there are those old half-hour Super Bowl highlight shows to get your football juices flowing. The best one - Super Bowl XXV between Buffalo and the New York Giants.
Also, media day can be interesting because it can give you an idea of the mindsets of both of this year's teams.
As far as a prediction for the game goes, mine will come next Friday.
- This is as good a time as any to take care of some overdue business concerning baseball's Pete Rose. Anyone who saw Rose play knows he was one of the greatest sportsmen of all times. He was a winner, team leader, record-setter and ultra-fierce competitor. It was only natural that he would later manage the Cincinnati Reds, the club on which he experienced his greatest successes.
But it was there where Rose's over-competitive and impulsive nature took over. While managing the Reds, Rose illegally wagered on baseball, including games involving his own squad. After being thrown out of baseball and lying for 14 years about his gambling habit, Rose recently finally admitted to what he had done, justifying his actions by saying he never bet on his Reds to lose.
The question now is, should Rose be reinstated and voted into baseball's Hall of Fame for his achievements on the field, or should he be permanently put in the Hall of Shame for breaking a very important rule and then lying about it?
Obviously Rose's on-field accomplishments merit him a statue in Cooperstown, but the rule says that if he bet on baseball, then he is finished. Rules are rules and now it is too bad so sad for him.
Furthermore, Rose has shown little remorse for his conduct, and one can't help but think we are not getting the complete truth from him. Somehow his managerial decisions had to have been affected by his putting money down on his team.
Did Rose ever bet the Reds on the run line? Perhaps Cincinnati would have had to win a game by two runs for Rose to win his bet. If Cincy had a man on third base with nobody out in the ninth inning of a tie ball game, if he had a bet on the run line surely Rose wouldn't have hesitated to pinch-hit with a home run hitter.
Did Rose ever bet the Over on a Reds game? If he did, certainly Rose could have left a tiring starting pitcher in a little bit too long in order to get late-inning runs.
Did Rose ever bet the Under in a Reds game? If so, that would have been a perfect day to rest some starters to keep the score down.
If Rose bet his Reds only to win by one run each time, then I suppose in theory he didn't compromise the game of baseball. But I feel we'll never know the whole truth about that, so I go back to the rule. Pete, since you bet on baseball, the rule says you're completely out.
Joe Ellison is the Nevada Appeal Betting Columnist. Contact him at editor@nevadaappeal.com.
