Thoughts in Advance of the Super Bowl (tm) XLV (really!?)

1. I just hope it is a good game. Too often they are not. And, for all my griping about the impotence and incapability of officials, and the stupid over-officiousness of the NFL in particular, I hope the game is won, or lost, on the field, by the players. Not by some arcane and ridiculous interpretation of a rule, a missed call, or, as last year, the callous exploitation of the uncertainty and chaos of a pile-on for a loose ball.
2. It really doesn't matter which team wins -- as Rick Reilly so eloquently pointed out, in most fundamental ways, there is little distinguishing these two teams from each other. It really doesn't matter which team wins -- in a league that prides itself on parity, almost to the point of parody, what does the winner of this game really prove, beyond that they won the 3 or 4 games needed to get to that point. By any reasonable measurement of the regular season, neither of these teams was the best in their conference -- and adding 2 more games to the regular season will NOT make the football season any more relevant in determining its ultimate champion!
3. Can we PLEASE get some common sense into the discussion about the importance of this game for the two quarterbacks? In truth, there are TWO things NFL quarterbacks are counted on to provide. One, of course, is throwing the ball and leading the offense. The OTHER is providing leadership. It is this latter one, to me, which is a bit squirrelly.

Sure, the quarterback starts every play with the ball. He must read the defense and make sure the called play will work. He gets the ball where it needs to be. But that, apparently, is not what the media means or looks at in this discussion of leadership. Winning championships is. Even though winning a game requires three squads -- offense, defense, and special teams -- to perform well enough; even though, as number 2 above makes clear, most close games come down to the outcome of a handful of plays at most, making the previous truth even more significant (and most games that AREN'T close can be chalked up to a failure of preparedness, or lack of overall talent) -- apparently only winning a Super Bowl authenticates great quarterbacks???

If that notion isn't stupid enough on its own weight, let me try this. If Pittsburgh wins today (more on that in a minute), then Ben Roethlisberger has won three Super Bowl (tm) rings. He will be haled by these talking heads as one of the great quarterbacks of all time. All for being fortunate to be surrounded by outstanding players, very good coaches, and an outstandingly solid organization, and plays for a team built around running and defense!? Really?

Instead of looking at the other allegedly greatest of all-time quarterbacks with whom he will be lumped with 3 rings (Aikman? Bradshaw? yes he has 4), let's try this comparison. Let's compare Big Ben and his three rings (circus?) to the following list: Marino, Favre, Elway, and P. Manning. BETWEEN those 4 are exactly 3 rings. Is anyone who doesn't already bleed black and gold seriously going to rate Roethlisberger anywhere but 5th on that list (and only THAT high because there aren't more choices)?

Or look at it from the other side -- if Green Bay wins, does this ONE victory authenticate everything he did in leading his team on the improbably journey that got them there in the first place? Five must wins just to REACH the game? I think THAT is a far greater demonstration of his ability to lead a team than the outcome of one grossly overhyped game played under circumstances totally foreign to the running of a football game would be! Yet no one is saying that getting here validates him. Only that he needs the SB win to become a great QB. Really? Marino isn't one of the best of all time without ever having won one? Seriously?

4. And while I am picking on the talking head hype-meisters, the vast majority of whom picked Green Bay to win, what happened to the axiomatic truth that the ability to run and to stop the opponent from running is what wins the big game? Assuming it is still true, why are we not being told to expect a Pittsburgh victory? If it is no longer true, when and why did it cease to be true? Is it a result of the same rules committee tinkering that has otherwise destroyed the game by micromanaging making it almost impossible for even the best defenses to adequately defend the pass anymore? If so, what does it say about the powers that be in this game?

When do pitchers and catchers report? :)