Vikings 27, Packers 24.
This is going to look really stupid when the Packers crush them by 30, but right now I'm imagining the Vikings somehow pulling off the upset.
The reason I think the Vikings could win is that a) it's a rivalry game, and there are no better trap games than rivalries, b) Ponder--while not great so far--doesn't seem like this would be a type of situation that would faze him, and played pretty well against them a couple weeks ago, and c) the Vikings--if they hold onto halftime leads, could be a 6-2 team. They're not, and I'm not expecting them to all of a sudden pull off 8 straight wins to make it to the playoffs... but they're a decent team with a crappy record. And they can hang with the Packers if they get a couple small breaks along the way.
Of course, the real reason I'm thinking the Vikings win is that the idea that the Vikings derail a Packers perfect season in route to a 2nd consecutive Super Bowl victory is the only way I feel I can stomach the rest of the season. So I'm trying to will it in a way. Which probably doesn't work.... but still.
Also, congratulations to the NBA on essentially cancelling their entire season today. Great work on each side involved. Couldn't have happened without their tireless and determined effort in making sure a season does not take place.
My default blame apportionment when there's a strike is 85% owners, 15% employees. I only kind of followed the NBA lockout news, so I'm going to assume that the owners were greedy plutocrats. Is there any reason to change my mind and blame the players more?
ReplyDeleteI am in your boat usually in typically siding with the employees, but in this case it seems like both of them are trying to sabotage the season. When the NFL lockout happened, the two sides were constantly talking--and the decertification process happened right away. The players are just starting their decertification process NOW (and it's apparently a drawn out process that I'd best not try to explain) after months where it seemed like the two sides would rather do anything but talk with each other.
ReplyDeleteThere's been a lot of talk recently that the owners are gunning for a lost season (and the players have conceded a lot, yet the owners still keep barking for more), but at the same time the system is pretty broken, and it's becoming a league in which the rich get richer and smaller markets like Cleveland and Denver get essentially screwed out of their star players. Not that the players have any obligation to stay with a smaller market team, but it's at a point where about only 8 teams are making money, and a lot of players are under bloated contracts because the teams are afraid that they'll have nothing to showcase on the court and overpay to keep whatever players they have. (Again, this isn't necessarily the players' fault... it's just a system that isn't working.)
As for the players, they had their best deal yet on the table and refused to take it. Didn't make a counter-offer or anything. And in essence, the players are foregoing paychecks to hold out for a deal that a lot say will be worse than the deal that they had on the table this weekend. I don't think Stern helped in the negotiation process by putting an expiration date on the deal and promising to revert it back to a worse deal if they didn't take it... but still.
So in summary, it's a lot of stubbornness on both sides that's killing a season. And maybe more. I think the owners are being a little too greedy... but the players were stupid in not taking Stern's offer (which was the best they'll probably see, and one in which that Stern made several concessions that the owners were upset about.)
I'm hoping right now that a renegade basketball league emerges from this, and challenges the NBA as the top league.