Skip to main content

Superbowl 50: Broncos versus Panthers

I know that some of my readers don't really understand that the Superbowl has come and gone for another year until they read what I have to say on the subject. So this one's for you.

refer to caption

The Broncos/Panthers matchup was widely anticipated. Neither of the two teams comes from a really huge consumer marker (no New York, Chicago, or southern California team was involved) but the comparisons were intriguing. A great offense, Carolina's, would be going head to head with a great defense, Denver's.

Things went Denver's way, almost from the start, more consistently than anyone had expected.

Another big item: the standout commercial in the first half was a Marilyn Monroe take on the Snickers bar series, "you're not you when you're hungry."

The stand-out for the second half involved a herd of running hot dogs, and the tagline "Meet the Ketchups."

The evolution of the game

One much watched player: Michael Oher, the inspiration for the human interest portions of Michael Lewis' book THE BLIND SIDE, and for a Sandra Bullock movie inspired in turn by that book. Lewis used Oher's personal story to give some specificity to the theme of his book, which is that the evolution of the game of American football has made the role of the offensive left tackle ever more important. Lewis thought that the career of Lawrence Taylor in the 1980s had really set this development in motion. Oher's ascent was simply a more recent manifestation thereof.

Most quarterbacks are right handed, and they tend to face right and throw that way more often than otherwise. This means that their "blind side" is on their left, and the tackle on that side is often the only fact standing between the QB and a bone crushing and/or game changing sack.

The movie adaptation isn't interested in the dry stuff about the evolution of a game over decades. It focuses on the human interest stuff concerning Oher, a black homeless fellow, and  the wealthy white family that took him into their home.

Back to the playing field

Finally we get back to the playing field and to what happened in this game, this Super Bowl. At the end of the first half, the Broncos sacked the Panthers' quarterback, Cam Newton, and twitter lit up. The tweets mostly said the same thing. Referencing a well-known scene from the movie, they said with slight variations in wording that Sandra Bullock should run on the field and give her stepson her pep talk again.

One of the relatively kind tweets said simply that the famous Oher -- pictured above -- was having nothing more than an "Oher-dinary" game.

THEN THE decisive play of the game, with 4 minutes left on the clock, was an utter failure of the Carolina Offensive line, though not especially of Oher. The whole defensive live pressed forward and, because the whole offensive line crumbled, this forced a fumble.

The tweets about that play bashed Cam Newton, not his designated bodyguards. Newton visibly drew back after his fumble, apparently trusting that another team member would jump on it, not trying to do so himself.

Here's a link to a particular discussion:  from Sporting News.

So: now you know how it went down. That fulfills my Super Bowl duties for another year.  Except for one point: this should have been known as Super Bowl L. Every porior Super Bowl has been designated by a roman numeral. This time, though, uniquely, in all the marketing it was Super Bowl 50. Go figure.

Comments

  1. Do you need free Google+ Circles?
    Did you know that you can get these AUTOMATICALLY AND TOTALLY FREE by registering on Like 4 Like?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …