Last week, I promoted this week's entry as "The SportDork Super Bowl Spectacular."  When I wrote that, I think I momentarily forgot that I'm living in England, so my world - at least my TV world - would be more or less free of Super Bowl hype for the next two weeks.  It wasn't until yesterday that it dawned on me that I haven't heard the big game mentioned once on TV over here since last week's entry.  Lucky for me, TV's not the only game in town anymore, so I headed to the internet in search of some juicy big game gossip that could supply me with material for this week's entry.  You know - something I could sink my teeth into, like "Eli Manning Pregnant With Tom and Gisele's Love Child." 

Having named this week's entry "The SportDork Super Bowl Spectacular," I went online in search of an answer to one simple question - a question that I probably should have considered last week: Is there anything particularly spectacular about this year's Super Bowl?

Let's see . . . . . where to start?  Oooh.  I've got one.  It's the big story of the week - the one that is dominating the Super Bowl headlines and has sports fans all over the country talking.  It's the subject of talk shows, chat rooms, and office break rooms.  It's got the whole country buzzing. 

Tom Brady has a minor high ankle sprain!! 

Hold on a second.  That's it?  That's the headliner?  As soon as I saw it, I knew the SD Super Bowl Spectacular was in big trouble.  When SI.com and ESPN.com have links to a TMZ.com video showing Brady walking from Gisele's New York City Apartment to his car with a protective boot on his right foot, you know it's a slow week for Super Bowl news.

You know what today's first story is on SI.com under 'Top Stories'?

Brady Tells Media Right Ankle 'Feeling Good'

This is all we've got?  Brady gets a minor injury in the third quarter of the San Diego game, finishes the game, wears a protective boot for one day two weeks before the Super Bowl, is never even considered questionable for the game, and we're getting daily updates on how his ankle feels?  Did you know that at a Patriots Super Bowl send-off rally, Brady "… walked up the three short steps to the podium with ease Sunday night, showing no signs of the right ankle injury . . ."?  And on NFL.com, you can watch a video titled, "Brady On His Ankle," which is a minute and ten seconds of Tom talking all about ………you guessed it - his ankle.  I included it below.  I know you don't want to miss it.  Plus, I know the ladies will gladly accept any excuse to watch Tom for a minute and ten seconds.  It even has a clip of the TMZ.com video of Tom with the boot on, walking towards a cab, carrying flowers (ladies, feel free to imagine he's bringing those flowers to you), so it's like a two-for-one.  Enjoy.

http://www.nfl.com/videos;jsessionid=028C4067929A8026A8342A4EC0335FA3?videoId=09000d5d8064a50c

Just in case you're link-averse, here's a picture of the now famous boot:

My favorite aspect of the Brady ankle "story" is the media's treatment of it.  There was a day, not that long ago, when the media recognized when a story was over and would move on to something else that might be newsworthy.  As early as last Monday, which was the same day that Brady was spotted wearing a walking boot, he told a radio station that he was "banged up" but that he would not miss the Super Bowl.  The Boston Herald and Boston Globe had reported it was a "mild" or "minor" ankle sprain by Wednesday morning.  So, as early as last Monday, when Brady himself told a radio station that the injury would not keep him out of the game, and without a doubt by Wednesday, when we learned it was a minor injury, this story has been OVER.  At least, that would have been the case back when the statements of the actual participants in a story and the facts of the story would generally dictated when the story was over.  But lucky for us, it's 2008, and we don't have to worry about pesky facts and an individual's statement - the individual being the guy who actually suffered the injury - getting in the way of creating and propelling a story.  In 2008, a statement from a player that it's a minor injury that won't prevent him from playing, as well as reports from major newspapers that it's a minor injury are meaningless if the media decides they're not done with the story.  They're just minor inconveniences, and they're certainly not enough to derail the story.  In 2008, if the media wants it to be a story, it will be, damn it, and there's nothing the participants or the facts can do to stop them.  We have now entered an era where the media simply refuses to let go of a story, regardless of all indications that the story is over, so enjoy the never-ending inquiries and discussions about Tom's ankle right up to and through kick-off on Sunday.

The media's treatment of the Brady ankle story reminds me of the recent Tiger Woods saga surrounding remarks made by a Golf Channel television announcer.  Watching what the media has done with that story is a thing of beauty - and by "thing of beauty", I mean absolutely frightening.  Here's a recap:  announcer makes inappropriate comment on live television, of which Tiger Woods is the object (she jokes that other players should 'lynch' him in a back alley).  Announcer apologizes for inappropriate comment.  Media descends on Tiger for his reaction, ready to turn this into a Sports Illustrated cover story.  They're ready for blood.  Just one good indication of outrage from Tiger, one good sound bite, and they're off to the races.  Only there's one problem.  Tiger immediately comes out and says that he's friends with the announcer who made the comment, has been for years, that he has no ill feelings toward her, that he's talked to her, and that it was a poor choice of words, but it's over.  It's over.  According to Tiger, it's a non-story.  He's taken no offense, and the two parties to the story have amicably resolved any issues, if any existed between the two to begin with.  At this point, you can almost feel the media's disappointment, but like a five-year old that wants a cookie but can't have one, they won't let go.  They refuse to accept that it's over.  They want a story, and if they can't get the parties to the story to cooperate, they're gonna make one.  They go back to Tiger repeatedly, hoping they can get Tiger, his agent, his caddy - anyone - to say something that might give them the spark they need to blow this thing into the story they've wanted it to be from the beginning.  They go to the Golf Channel, other players, other announcers - but they can't get anyone to give this thing the legs they need it to have. 

Still, for two weeks now we keep getting stories about the story, because they believe if they try hard enough, they can turn this thing into the huge story they want it to be.  In an ironic twist, some idiot at Golf Week magazine, obviously desperate to turn the event into a cover story and further sensationalize it, puts a noose on the cover of the magazine to promote an article about the comments that were made.  In his zest to exploit the story, he failed to realize that the noose was as, if not more offensive than the comment made by the announcer - the comment that was the very source of the cover idea to begin with.  He was promptly fired (hopefully they cited 'idiocy' as the reason for his dismissal).  Al Sharpton even got in on the party, calling for the announcer (who was suspended for two weeks) to be fired and threatening to picket the Golf Channel offices if she isn't canned.  That has given it additional legs, and to date, it's still a 'story'.  It's particularly interesting that Tiger himself seems to have a firm grasp on what this has been all about.  Last week he did in one sentence what I've been trying to do for three paragraphs.  He provided a very insightful assessment of the entire episode - an assessment that also spoke volumes about the role the media plays in "reporting" events in today's society: 

"It was more media-driven than anything else."

Enough ranting.  Spending a couple pages writing a story about how the media doesn't know when to let go of a story - and doing it by writing about stories that should no longer be stories - has a strangely circular feel to it.    Where was I?  Oh yeah - To say that the Super Bowl pre-game news has been lame would be like saying my cholesterol is "a little high."  After twenty-four hours of surfing (ok - maybe it was more like an hour), I was able to find a grand total of one big Super Bowl story, and that one's not even an actual story. 

So, is there anything particularly spectacular about this year's Super Bowl?  You better believe there is!!  It's called halftime!

First, you've got Tom Petty (Go Gators).  And if Tom Petty's not your thing, how about Lingerie Bowl 5?  For a small fee, you can spice up your halftime with more than chips and salsa.  Here's the website: http://www.lingeriebowl.com/.  And here's a sneak peek at the action:

Someone please tape it for me.  I don't think it will be an option over here in the UK.

(Update - I just discovered that Lingerie Bowl 5 has been cancelled.  Devastating news.  Looks like the NFL thought having a bunch of models running around in lingerie less than two miles from their 'NFL Experience' might detract from attendance, so they put the screws to the city of Glendale, Arizona and they denied the Lingerie Bowl a permit.  So there is now officially nothing spectacular about this year's Super Bowl.  Not even Tom Petty can save it.  Here's the story: http://www.modelvanity.net/2008/01/lingerie-bowl-v-cancelled.html.)

Are you psyched up for the game now?  Me neither.  Maybe we'll get lucky this week and Plaxico Burress will start a brawl in a strip club.  Or maybe Randy Moss will go AWOL and be found in a seedy motel three hours before the game, high on meth.  Or maybe the network will send Tiki Barber in to interview some of his former Giant teammates on Sunday and they'll strip him down and duct tape him to a locker and film it.  Or maybe Belichick will finally snap and attack a reporter after he asks about Brady's knee.  A guy can dream, right?

Wait!  I just found something.  It turns out that Giants' offensive lineman Grey Reugamer enjoys castrating lambs with his teeth.  Here's the article: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/107441

And here's a great picture from Fark.com:

I knew I'd find something spectacular about this year's Super Bowl!!

Alright - enough talk about lamb testicles.  It's time to break down the matchup.  Are you ready for the final SportDork NFL Pick Of The Week??  If you've been following my picks of the week, you know that since the inception of The SportDork NFL Pick Of The Week in October, there has been a strong N.Y. Giants/New England Patriots theme.  According to my calculations, I made a pick of the week during ten weeks of the regular season.  Each of the ten weeks, I picked one game, except for the first week, when I was on crack and picked two games, thinking I could sustain that kind of effort going forward.  Out of those ten weeks, I picked a game involving the Patriots or Giants seven times.  That's right - given the opportunity to pick one game each week, I picked one of the two eventual Super Bowl contenders seven out of ten times.  Scary, eh?  I wish I could say that it was because I knew that they would both end up in the Super Bowl, but I think it was more a function of the Giants playing over here at Wembley and the Patriots pursuit of perfection that caused me to gravitate toward them.  Shit - who am I kidding?  I gravitated toward the Giants because Eli's a weenie and fun to rip on, and Tom Brady - well, Tom Brady's just irresistible.  Not as irresistible as Tim Tebow, but pretty irresistible.  So it was only right that the Super Bowl - The SportDork's final pick of the week for the 2007/2008 season - would come down to the two teams that played in almost seventy percent of the games I picked this year.

New England Patriots -12 vs. N.Y. Giants

Picking a winner in this game comes down to your ability to answer one question:  Will the Patriots play to the best of their ability, or will they slosh through another Super Bowl in workman-like fashion, winning with a performance that is just good enough for victory? 

The Patriots are a far superior football team to the Giants.  They will win the game.  I also have complete confidence that if they come out and play their best football, it will be a blowout, regardless of whether the Giants play their best.  But if history has taught us anything, it's that the Patriots have the ability to gauge the level of their opponent, and then win by playing only slightly better football than that opponent.  Their win over the Eagles in the Super Bowl a few years ago was a perfect example.  They didn't cover in that game, or in their win over the Panthers in the previous Super Bowl.  Every indication is that they are poised and ready to do the same this year.  They've put together back-to-back uninspiring performances against the Jaguars and the Chargers.  They came close to losing to the Giants in the last week of the season, and the Giants appear to be peaking at the perfect time. 

All signs point to a close game - a narrow Patriots victory or even the unlikely upset - which is why a lot of 'smart' bettors will be taking the Giants.  But not The SportDork!!!!  All the signs are pointing too strongly to the Giants keeping it close, which means it's inevitable that the Patriots will break out of their funk and light up the scoreboard (and Eli).  Taking the Giants and twelve will only get you halfway there, since the Patriots will win by twenty-four in their first Super Bowl blowout (well, their first Super Bowl blowout as the blowout-er, not the blowout-ee.  Can't forget the Bears debacle back in '85.).  That's why The SportDork Pick Of The Week, and final pick for the 2007-2008 season (unless I pick the Pro-Bowl, which could be interesting) is New England - 12!!!