Taking Away Jets Fans’ Only Excuse For Even Talking About The Super Bowl

The two most important games in professional football history, without a doubt really, are the 1958 NFL Championship and Super Bowl III.  The former essentially cemented the game as a mass marketable television product, and the second made the AFL-NFL merger start to look more like a union of equal entities rather than "a 26-team league with ten 'last-place' teams".  

While also inarguable that the ’58 game was better on its merits, it remains arguable as to which one actually had more impact after the fact.   After trying and discarding several loose cultural and historical analogs to illustrate the point—Red Sea vs Revelation, Magna Carta vs Westphalia, Revolutionary vs Civil War, 13th vs 19th Amendment—I finally settled on a much simpler one:  

’58 is Pro Football’s Bar Mitzvah.  SB III is Pro Football getting engaged.  [Mazel Tov.  It's a ball.]

[Inspired on the one hand by my impending nuptials and my poor beloved’s already having resigned herself to long-suffering football widowhood, and on the other by my years in Yeshiva having prepared me for the inevitable suffering involved in rooting for the Jets.]

However, after another season of enduring the apparently endless record-setting domination of Tom Brady [which followed waiting for Dan Marino to retire, sandwiched around Jim Kelly’s unrepeatable run of Super Bowl appearances], one would wonder what keeps Jet fans like me watching Super Bowls. 

A lot of it has to do with SB III, and the extra pangs of nostalgia on those occasions where Joe Namath trots out onto the field to toss the coin, present the trophy, or another honor.  We are continually reminded of the franchise’s one moment of fleeting glory as well as its perpetual, if distant, relevance.  And that’s precisely the problem.

While there have been several “curse” labels attached to the team because of Super Bowl III—Joe Namath selling his soul to the Devil; the Jets’ partners forcing out Sonny Werblin—neither of those are as trenchant or identifiable as, say, Babe Ruth, or the Billy Goat, or Bobby Layne.  [With all respect due Sidney Zion, Werblin was cashiered before the 1968 season began.]

As a psych professor at Penn explained to me, the curse is the actual win itself.  The Jets can never top that moment again.  [In contrast, the Colts in theory could top ’58, as it occurred in the pre-Super Bowl era.]

Which brings me back to my Yeshiva HS education.  In one of his asides during a senior year Jewish Philosophy class, the rabbi opined that the only real Super Bowls were the first four, as the game was designed to match the top team from the AFL and NFL.  All the games from V on were/are “AFC-NFC Championship Games.”

I think the evidence supports turning that theory on its head: the game wasn’t even officially called the "Super Bowl" until V; III unofficially got the label, but if you ever see a broadcast of IV, note that the CBS graphic reads “AFL-NFL Championship Game.”  And V was the first one where the winner was awarded the Lombardi Trophy.  Which, in effect, renders the first four Super Bowls as a series of very important postseason exhibition games, but exhibition games nonetheless.  Which means—they don’t count as "Super Bowl wins".

“SBIII doesn’t count” may seem like the ultimate heresy to Jets fans, but if you look at what happened to the other two pre-merger SB winners in the long term, the theory might be more salient: the Packers [winners of I and II] made the playoffs twice between 1968 and 1993 [one of those appearances during the strike season of 1982] before Brett Favre made them a powerhouse again; the Chiefs also made the playoffs only twice in the next two decades after winning IV, and they haven’t been back to the game since.  In contrast, the Colts shook off their disastrous showing in III quickly enough to win V [and only made a mess of themselves after Robert Irsay bought the team in 1972].

For Jets fans, watching the game year after year—more painful when Brady keeps getting in, horrifically worse when Eli Manning and the Giants show up to knock him off—brings back the days of the Guarantee every time, keeping the franchise relevant, but only as a relic.

Jets fans must let go of III.

Legacy: A Modest Proposal

President Obama insists that had he been permitted to run for a third term and run against Donald Trump, he would have won.

Considering the US’ recent departure from policy in abstaining from UNSC Resolution 2334, maybe it’s time for President Obama to ponder another Presidency, where he would not be bound by term limits and/or Constitutions and could rule by pen and phone.

I speak, of course, of the office of President of the Palestinian Authority.  Although the current occupant of that office is in the 11^th year of a four-year term, that might prove attractive to Obama: once in office, he wouldn’t have to work to win it again.

While the situation on the ground would limit Obama’s rule to the “West Bank” as the Gaza Strip is currently ruled by the duly elected Hamas [thanks, Condi], the other Palestinian terroritory could prove fertile ground for Obama’s penchant for social engineering, and he could again force his progressive agenda on a reluctant population, but this time without the pesky obstacles of constitutional checks and balances.

Let’s start with the President’s signature domestic achievement.  Here he might already have a mandate, because apparently in Gaza there have been open clinics for a long time, and he would find himself leading from behind.  Ohamascare would provide him a useful blueprint to transfer elements of the ACA eastward.

The new President could also attempt to impose his vision of a gun-free polity and attempt to confiscate private weapons.  While he might find the population reluctant to turn in their toys, he would have a police force at his disposal without one white cop.  He could also work closely with what’s left of the UN and use them to store the weapons, as they do for Hamas in Gaza.  This would be balanced by the fact that the PA has no army: instead of gutting a military like in the US, Obama wouldn’t even need to dispense with one in the first place.

Then there would be Planned Parenthood.  One guesses that there are no family planning clinics in the terroritory, and funding would be at a premium.  No worries: here comes George Soros to the rescue.  Plus, it would give him the excuse to start taxing the rich, and this would be the final piece of the puzzle: everyone in the upper echelons of the PA and PLO has hoarded cash, especially the family of the late Yasser Arafat [hello, estate tax], and the new President could either tax them into penury or otherwise seize his needed funds by executive order.

Finally, there would be the issue of illegal immigration.  Obama would come into office with a ready-made population of “illegals”: the Jewish “settlers”.  What an opportunity to blatantly ignore immigration laws for the benefit of a “minority” group.  And with the money he gets from Soros and from the new tax regime, he could support and protect their continued existence in defiance of the law, just like the sanctuary cities back home.

Yes, Mr. Obama.  Here is your progressive wonderland, where you can turn an entire population into community organizers.  Isn’t this what you always wanted?

Prevent Defense

The Basket of Deplorables has been emptied by its carrier upon the realization that the comment paralleled the “47%” comment of 2012, part one of that campaign’s twin killing [Hurricane Sandy being the part two].

Instead, it’s been filled by the tops of all four electoral tickets.  The only question is whether to call them “Deplorables”, or “Indefensibles”, the only salient reason to vote for any candidate being playing defense to prevent another one from winning [which, as everyone knows, is what a “prevent defense” does: it prevents you from winning].

Simply put: one who votes for Clinton is joining forces with terrorist sympathizers.  One who joins votes for Trump is joining forces with the alt right and its incursion into the body politic.  One who votes for Stein is joining forces with Jenny McCarthy.  One who vote for Johnson may be joining forces with a modicum of intellectual vacuity that gives rise to the specter of Sarah Palin [more perception than reality, but too glaring to ignore].

Ultimately Trump is playing with house money, even if he’s too narcissistic to realize it.  A Trump victory would serve as the most humiliating repudiation of eight years of an administrative reign since the 1966 midterms and 1968 Presidential race.

A failed Trump administration might trigger a cascade of schadenfreude among Hillary voters.  If he wins and governs irresponsibly, he’s not going to care very much about the results; he’ll dodge responsibility the way he has in all the debates.   However, should that happen, one might then point to the dual failure of the Democrats to put forth responsible policies when they were in power and compound that failure by putting forth a—or the—candidate who should have stopped Trump, his election being the repudiation of eight years of Democratic policies and their once and erstwhile future promulgators.

If Hillary wins—and it’s going to be close—one can easily point at the GOP for failing to put forth a viable candidate against a supremely vulnerable opponent.  If after winning she has a failed administration, she will become the modern-day and Left analog of Herbert Hoover, and earn hatred from all quarters: those to her right who never liked her and prayed for her humiliation, and those to her left who will feel that she shortchanged them for her own selfish reasons.  If she loses the election, as I’ve noted elsewhere, she becomes the political analog to the 1968 Baltimore Colts.  Contra her declaration at the end of the debate, she may really not be all that “prepared” for what she now faces.

So while voting for Johnson may present problems of credibility for anyone with any sense of current events and/or history [which he has proven himself to be woefully lacking], the fact that he knows he can’t win makes his candidacy more palatable.  In fact, his track record as governor indicates he knows something about governmental administration, something Trump knows nothing about, and something Clinton has executed with disastrous results.  [As PJ O’Rourke put it, she’s “wrong about everything”, albeit within “normal parameters”.  Still, no less “wrong about everything”.]  And his choice of VP is probably the closest thing to a bipartisan successful political figure, which indicates he knows how to vet [which is a marketable skill vis-a-vis immigration, but one Johnson would waive in that area.  Oh well.]

[It IS a good thing Johnson didn’t join in the debates; owing to his obvious inability to think under pressure, he might have made Trump look smart.  True Libertarians are likely devastated at the damage he’s done to the credibility of the movement; had his candidacy been more viable, the decent thing would have been to resign.  However, those backing him for other reasons are likely unconcerned with the fate of that movement or its party.]

Basically: Trump appeases the alt right; Clinton appeases terrorist supporters; Stein appeases conspiracy theorists. Whom does Johnson appease, exactly? More specifically: a Johnson supporter might sacrifice some intellectual credibility.  Voters for all other three candidates sacrifice moral credibility. 

Either way, it’s time for me to own that the candidate I’VE committed to back is woefully unprepared and/or unfit for the highest national office; should said candidate prove victorious and proceed to govern with disastrous results, I’d have to own the vote and have everyone say “I told you so”.  I await an equivalent admission from diehard acolytes of HRC or DJT about their respective standard bearers, whether during the election cycle or when whichever victorious future administration spectacularly tanks.  Somehow I don’t expect said admissions to be forthcoming.  [Stein acolytes hopefully will eschew vaccination long enough to Darwin award themselves out of existence.]

If anyone REALLY thought the fate of the Republic was on the line, they’d sit out.   Or play prevent defense.

Endgame?

Super Bowl V.

The first Super Bowl in the merged NFL, and the first one in which the awarded trophy bore the name of Vince Lombardi. 

Tied at 13, 1:51 left in regulation. 

Dallas Cowboys’ ball, all three timeouts, 1^st and 10 at the Baltimore Colts’ 48 after a punt.

How do you blow that?

A run for -1 yard, a 24-yard holding penalty [15 yards from the spot of the foul back then], and a too-high pass from Craig Morton to Dan Reeves deflected off Reeves’ hands into the arms of Colts’ LB Mike Curtis.  The stage was set for Jim O’Brien’s FG that won the game for Baltimore.

On the eve of the first Presidential debate, the drama of what was termed the “Blunder Bowl” bears mentioning.  Note that the winning Colts turned the ball over seven times during the course of the game, but won largely because of a [disputed] fumble on their 1-yard line early in the 3^rd quarter, and Morton’s three 4^th quarter interceptions.  It wasn’t so much the number of or even the enormity of the mistakes; it was the timing. 

One might say that something similar will happen in this election.  It won’t be won by either deeply flawed mainstream candidate, but will be lost by whomever makes the most crucial mistake at the most inopportune time, most likely as close to Election Day as possible.

It’s hard to say which candidate parallels which team right now; there’s no real accurate way to quantify the number of gaffes, or even the enormity of the ones everyone seems to admit are actual gaffes.  At the moment, it does seem as if Donald Trump is doing a better job of controlling himself, while Hillary Clinton is desperately grabbing onto some semblance of a favorable narrative as events both directly [emails, health] and indirectly [the terrorism in NY and MN, riots in NC] related give the impression that she isn’t in control of it anymore, or that she ever was.

If, however, Hillary Clinton does lose this election, no one is going to be comparing her to the Cowboys of Super Bowl V.

She will, instead, become the political parallel of another Baltimore Colts team.

The one that was heavily favored in Super Bowl III and couldn’t lose.

And then did.

To…the Jets.