Recent Live Tournament Play, and the WSOP Circuit

So. I've played some poker here and there over the past few months -- maybe four or five tournaments in total, spread out over a few different venues and a few different buyin levels. In general, the story has been the same when I have played lately: lose some early as I play too loose with subpar cards trying to hit a big flop, then find a way to survive, and eventually chip up enough to last through the halfway point of the field. But then, by the time around two-thirds of the field is gone, invariably I find myself short-stacked as I just have not had the cards to be able to win some big showdowns, nor sufficient sack to push as much as I obviously have to be doing in big pots even I know I do not have the best hand. Eventually I try to make a move that is a pretty obvious play given my short stack, I get caught, and I'm out short of the money positions. I'm playing ok poker early on in these events, but I seem to be consistently just not amassing enough chips in the early and middle stages to have enough chip utility to really play poker in the final third of the tournament.

I've written about this many times, but I know why this is happening. I just don't play enough poker anymore. This did not used to be my problem when playing in live tournaments. In general I am surely a much better live player today than I ever was four or five years ago showing up in a casino and hoping to get nailed with the deck like never before. But when it comes down to it, as I've described previously, I can literally feel my instincts being off almost every time I sit down to play these days. I just don't have near that feel for when to push em all in, for when I can take down a big pot with a large bluff, that I know I used to have all the time, and that you simply need to have more attuned than I do these days if you're going to run deep. Short of that awesome deck-smacking I mentioned above, it's the only way to survive deep enough with a big enough stack to make a real run, and I simply have not been able to do that, for months on end, at the poker table.

It's sad, really. Unlike so many crappy players out there, I actually know what I'm supposed to be doing, at least in general terms. I am conscious sitting there at the table that I am not stealing enough, that I should probably bluff this guy here because I know he is bluffing himself and his bet has made the pot a good size. And I just know when other people are doing that move to me, making me lay down with what I am fairly sure is a bluff. But am I going to call them down with AK high just to try to prove them wrong? Am I going to bust early from a tournament with zero pairs, just to try to catch a bluffer who has made a small pot into a big one by firing barrel after barrel, good money after bad?

I've also mentioned this before, but one thing that is clear as a bell from my recent live play is that I play much tighter than the rest of the table post flop. The bottom line is, there are very few scenarios where I would call an allin with just one pair -- any pair, even slow-played pocket Aces -- early in a tournament. Period. Now, I'm never saying never here. But it's just not my thing, busting out from a tournament in the early stages, with less than probably top two pair, or at least top pair and something else very solid. Another pair, a huge draw, something. But I cannot tell you how many times I watch people get it allin with just TPTK, with just the Ace-King on the Ace-high flop, all the way through the first few hours of these large tournaments. And the amazing thing is, these clowns who call down with TPTK seem to be right more often than they're wrong! I just can't believe it. Similarly, I couldn't count the number of true "hero calls" I've seen guys make in the early rounds, calling down a guy they're sure is bluffing, with just their pocket 7s or whatever it is. Again, I seem to see an inordinate number of those guys who end up proving to be right when they do make the call, but in my mind that does not make this a good play necessarily. I mean, who calls down with pocket 7s for all their chips at the river against a guy you are 50% sure is totally bluffing with nothing, very early in a tournament? How do you do that? Can that really be a good play in an early-tournament context? Very rarely, it seems to me. And yet, I see it all the time in these things. All. The. Time.

I'm sure that learning to make donkey calls with weak hands for huge chips based on a hunch is not really what my game is missing these days in order to be able to amass a real stack by the midpoint of one of these tournaments. And yet, it's got to be something. It's too much of a pattern for me not to notice it when I apply my objectivity to the situation. I'm definitely not being aggressive enough, and even though I know that going in and choose to make it a focus, in the heat of the moment I am just not finding the situations where I'm comfortable making a move with nearly the frequency as I think I need to in order to keep up with the table.

Will I go to Las Vegas this summer to play in the World Series of Poker again, after taking my first year off in five last summer? That is maybe up in the air at this point -- though ultimately the choice will be up to me -- but one thing I definitely do plan to do is try to sit in at least one or two other larger tournament fields before the summertime, to get that old feeling back and really to see if I can hone my skills sufficiently so that I do feel like I have enough of a chance to drop the buyins on a WSOP tournament or two this year. I'm not making any rules for myself as far as having to cash in this-or-that tournament or I won't go to Vegas, or having to win my buyin in cash games in order to play in the desert this summer, nothing silly like that. However, I do want to get myself into a real big tournament setting once or twice, and see how I perform "under the spotlight" so to speak, before I make any decisions about Vegas and the World Series.

To that end, the WSOP Circuit is coming to Caesars Atlantic City -- a poker room which I have frequented several times over the past few years -- from March 1-14 of this year, and I intend to be there to sit for at least one of the events of that series. Ideally I would play an event over a weekend, with either a Friday or a Monday built in, so I could play and only take off one day from work to do it, as most of the WSOP Circuit events are two-day events. And although the one-day jobs are always easier and more efficient for me to play in, I think I'd like to get involved in another 2-day event, and give myself yet another try to make just my second-ever Day Two in a live tournament, which to this day is still among my greatest personal embarrassments when it comes to poker tournaments. So here is the schedule for the WSOP-C at Caesars:

2011/2012 WSOP Circuit Event - Caesars Atlantic City


Thu, Mar 1st
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #1: No-Limit Hold'em
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Thu, Mar 1st
5:00 PM
1-Day Event Main Event Mega Satellites through March 3rd (Non-Ring Event)
Satellite to the Caesars Atlantic City WSOP Circuit Main Event on Saturday, March 10. No 5pm Mega Satellite will be held on Thursday, March 8th. $190

Thu, Mar 1st
7:00 PM
1-Day Event Nightly 7PM No-Limit Hold'em Tournaments through March 12th (Non-Ring Event)
No 7PM nightlies will be held Friday, March 9th through Sunday, March 11th. $200

Fri, Mar 2nd
12:00 PM
3-Day Event Event #2A: No-Limit Hold'em Re-Entry
Re-entry event. Players eliminated in 2A may re-enter in 2B. Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Sat, Mar 3rd
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #2B: No-Limit Hold'em Re-Entry
Re-entry event. Players eliminated in 2A may re-enter in 2B. Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Sun, Mar 4th
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #3: No-Limit Hold'em
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $555

Mon, Mar 5th
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #4: No-Limit Hold'em
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Tue, Mar 6th
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #5: No-Limit Hold'emOfficial WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $555

Wed, Mar 7th
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #6: No-Limit Hold'em Six Handed
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Thu, Mar 8th
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #7: No-Limit Hold'em
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Thu, Mar 8th
5:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #8: Limit Omaha Eight or Better
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Fri, Mar 9th
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #9: No-Limit Hold'em
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $1,080

Fri, Mar 9th
7:00 PM
1-Day Event Main Event Mega Satellite (Non-Ring Event)
Satellite to the Caesars Atlantic City WSOP Circuit Main Event on Saturday, March 10th. $190

Sat, Mar 10th
11:00 AM
3-Day Event Event #10A: No-Limit Hold'em Main Event
Re-entry event. Players eliminated in 10A may re-enter in 10B. Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $1,600

Sat, Mar 10th
5:00 PM
1-Day Event Ladies No-Limit Hold'em Event (Non-Ring Event)
$230

Sat, Mar 10th
7:00 PM
3-Day Event Event #10B: No-Limit Hold'em Main Event
Re-entry event. Players eliminated in 10A may re-enter in 10B. Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $1,600

Sun, Mar 11th
12:00 PM
2-Day Event Event #11: No-Limit Hold'em
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Sun, Mar 11th
5:00 PM
1-Day Event Seniors No-Limit Hold'em Event (Non-Ring Event)
$230

Sun, Mar 11th
7:00 PM
1-Day Event Road to the Main Event: 2012 WSOP Main Event Satellite (Non-Ring Event)
Satellite to the 2012 WSOP Main Event at the Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, NV $550

Mon, Mar 12th
12:00 PM
1-Day Event Event #12: No-Limit Hold'em Turbo
Official WSOP Circuit Ring Event; Counts in points standings. $345

Mon, Mar 12th
5:00 PM
1-Day Event Road to the Main Event: 2012 WSOP Main Event Satellite (Non-Ring Event)
$1,100


Let me know if anyone thinks any particular event looks good for me, or for you. If anyone in the area (or who can be in the area) is thinking about attending any of these tournaments, let me know and maybe we can meet up there together. Although I have some inclinations about which event to play and when, I am generally flexible as long as they decisions are made fairly soon as opposed to at the very last minute. Preliminarily, I am thinking about that $345 re-entry Event 2A/2B on the first weekend of the series, Event #9 which is the $1080 buyin nlh tournament on the second Friday, or even Event #11, the $345 nlh event on the second Sunday of the weekend. The Turbo one-day event is also a possibility, although as I mentioned I am more interested right now in playing in a more WSOP-like two-day event to try to get myself in as close to a WSOP situation as I am likely to find.

Anybody else planning to play any of the WSOP Circuit tournaments at Caesar's in a few weeks?

Why the Cheatriots Couldn't Win

Here are some great stats I saw about this past weekend's superbowl, many of which are in this article about the effect of luck on the game, and which I really think highlight well my lasting impressions of this game, these teams, and the 2011-2012 NFL season.

For starters, some stats to give an idea of just how amazing the Giants' feat this year is. For example, did you know that Eli Manning and the Giants finished 3-0 on the road in this postseason, while all other teams in the NFL finished 0-9 on the road? So in a year where nobody seemed to be able to rise up and win a game against a better team in the playoffs, the Giants stepped up and beat the Falcons at home, followed by the 15-1 Packers at Lambeau, and then the 13-3 49ers in San Fran, and then they followed it up by winning the Superbowl in Indianapolis against the 13-3 Cheatriots.

Moving to their performance in the Superbowl itself, in their Super Bowl 42 meeting, the Giants held New England to 14 points, which was 23 fewer points than its regular-season average in that season of incredible offensive outbursts for the Cheats. In their second Super Bowl meeting this past Sunday night, the Giants held New England to 17 points, again 15 fewer points than its regular-season average. The Giants defense simply stepped up big time against the Cheatriots, both times they have met in recent memory in the superbowl. At more than two touchdowns below the Cheatriots' season averages, it is really worth mentioning.

And regarding Eli Manning, I did not realize this but Eli Manning is now 7-0 as a starter on the road in the playoffs, with 12 touchdown passes versus two interceptions. That right there might be one of the sickest stats you will ever see about the NFL postseason. Forget Mark Sanchez and his four road playoff wins, Eli Manning at 7-0 on the road in the playoffs, with 12 tds and just 2 picks? Mark Sanchez doesn't even dream of being that good in the clutch. What a stud Eli turned himself into this year. Much as I hate to admit it.

Some interesting stats comparing this year's Giants run to that of last year's Green Bay Packers, and the general mediocrity of the teams in this year's championship, during the regular season:

The Packers and Giants, the last two Super Bowl champions, were a combined 19-13 during the regular season followed by a combined 8-0 in the postseason over the past two years. If you recall, the Packers were all but done after an embarrassing loss at home to the Lions in Week 14 back in 2011, and then they backed into the playoffs anyways and the rest was history. And this season, the Giants' Week 15 debacle loss at home to the hapless Redskins in a game that wasn't even as close as the 23-10 score would indicate seemed to all but ensure that they would miss the playoffs as well, but then wins at the Jets and against the Cowgirls in the last two weeks of the season catapulted them in anyways, and once again, the rest has since become the stuff of NFL legend.

Also, the Giants and Cheatriots finished the 2011-2012 season with a combined record of just 6-6 against teams that had winning seasons, and that includes all the playoff games. The Giants beat only New England this year during the regular season among its 9 wins, 8 of which were against teams who ended the year 8-8 or worse. Meanwhile, the Cheats did not win a single game against an over-.500 regular season team despite winning 13 games overall this year. Think about that -- the Cheatriots played only two games against winning teams in 2011 -- the Steelers and the Giants in Weeks 8 and 9 this year -- and they lost them both, by an average of 6 points. Neither of these teams faced particularly strong schedules this year, nor did either team perform particularly well against the few good teams they did face, but just like last year's Packers, they got hot at the right time and rode their big players to victory.

There are also some good stats that I think give some solid insight into how the Cheatriots managed to lose this game:

Tom Brady completed 25 of his first 31 pass attempts in Superbowl XLVI, but then ended the game completing only 2 of his final 10 attempts as he desperately tried to lead his team on a late-game comeback. Eli Manning, however, completed 25 of his first 34 pass attempts much like Tom Brady did, but then he finished the game completing five of his final six attempts, including the amazing pass to Mario Manningham (see below) that will go down as the biggest and most amazing play of this year's superbowl.

Which really illustrates the larger point here, to those of you who are big football fans and have watched a lot of these big games over the past decade or so: Tom Brady is simply not as good as he used to be. This should not surprise anyone, as he is now in his 12th year playing in a league where the vast majority of players don't ever survive half that long. By NFL standards, Brady is getting up there in age, and the simple fact is that, when his team was recording signs and stealing plays and winning superbowls back in the early 2000s, Tom Brady was at the time one of the absolutely most accurate, best decision-making quarterbacks in the league. Nowadays, Brady's accuracy is just not up there with the Rodgers's and the Brees's, and it really showed in this year's superbowl.

For starters, let's take a look at the play everyone (including Brady's wife) is talking about, Wes Welker's huge drop late in the 4th quarter which would have sustained a key Cheatriots drive and gone a long way towards ensuring a New England victory in the superbowl:



If you take a look at the play above and you're capable of some objectivity that so many people lack when it comes to their favorite sports team, this really isn't about Welker missing the catch, even a little bit. It's a bad throw. Period. Not only is this ball about four feet straight over Welker's head, when it had no need to be given that Welker is completely wide, wide open, but it'a also at his back shoulder, making this a very,very difficult catch. Now, don't get me wrong -- Wes Welker is the most productive receiver in the NFL for the past several years, and he does quite often find a way to make this catch. And I can certainly feel for Tom Brady when I see his top receiver get both hands on a thrown ball in a situation where he was not otherwise touched by any defenders. But at the end of the day, the inescapable conclusion from watching this play is that Tom Brady made a bad throw. The precision accuracy that used to be such a hallmark of Brady's success back in the early days of his Cheatriots career, is now gone, at least in any consistent aspect. In this case, Brady had his #1 target wide open on an absolutely crucial, nearly superbowl-winning play, but Brady's throw ended up in an extremely difficult spot to catch it, even for Wes Welker. Gisele, Tom and anyone else can say what they want, but this one is probably 85% on Brady, and 15% on Welker in my view.

Similarly, let's look at the next biggest play in the game, from the Cheatriots' perspective -- the Chase Blackburn interception:



Once again, here is Tom Brady given all the time in the world behind the line, but when none of his wideouts are open, Brady opts to go with his ever-trusty tight end Rob Gronkowski and heaves one up there, at a time when Gronk had clearly beaten his defender and was a good five yards open downfield and counting. Unfortunately, just look at that pass. Brady throws it a little off his back foot, a little tentatively, and the result is just what one might expect -- this ball is at least ten feet short. And really, it's even shorter than that, because Gronk had his guy beat when the ball left Brady's hands, so Brady should have led Gronk even deeper with his throw, but this toss ends up about 10 feet short of where Gronk was when Brady threw the ball. There's just not even close to enough juice on this throw, and this is the one and only reason why Chase Blackburn was able to make what was admittedly a nice catch on his part. But if this ball is thrown well, there's no chance for Blackburn to even make a play, and given Gronkowski's performance this year, it seems a pretty safe bet he takes this one into the end zone for a huge score that almost certainly changes the outcome of this game. Instead, however, Brady launches a duck well short of its intended target, and this gives Blackburn -- who was already behind the play right from when Brady threw the ball -- the opportunity to be in better position that Gronkowski to make the huge interception and take away one of the Cheatriots' last good opportunities to score in this game. The simple fact is, Tom Brady did not used to miss this badly on his longballs in superbowls past, but now his accuracy is just not what it used to be, and it shows in his results.

Before anyone says I'm just nitpicking here, let's take a look at the Giants' biggest play of the superbowl, which was this amazing catch by Mario Manningham down the left sideline late in the 4th quarter with his team needing a score in the final minutes to take the lead from the Cheatriots:



I mean, just look at that play. Where Tom Brady stepped down in his team's biggest throws of the day, making questionable decisions and missing his spots as detailed above, Eli Manning shows us what Brady used to do in the superbowl back in the day -- he absolutely nails it. Nails it! As amazing of a job catching that ball as Manningham did -- hauling it in, feet both in bounds, retaining possession while being hit and tackled out of bounds -- I just can't get away from the fact that Eli Manning's throw is even better. Play that vid over again and just look at where that ball landed. And this was with Eli also off his back foot and under pressure to boot, but just look at what Eli did there. He lofted this one and landed it in a spot where absolutely, unequivocally, the only player who could make any play on the ball whatsoever is his guy. Those defenders -- though Manningham seemed like he was draped with coverage when this play happened in real time -- but those defenders literally had no shot to even touch this ball. Manning put this throw perfectly where only Manningham could make a play, and yet just close enough to him to enable him to actually be able to make that play.

This is what winning superbowl quarterbacks do, and this is exactly what Tom Brady used to do back in the day when his Cheatriots were winning superbowls themselves. But not anymore. Now, impeccable, almost impossibly perfect throws like this are what Eli Manning does to Tom Brady's team. While Brady, on the other hand, basically, well, Brady's himself. You thought Tebowing was big, but Bradying might be I think the Next Big Thing.

I'll leave this post with a couple of final thoughts about the superbowl, and the Cheatriots's cheating past.

Before Spygate, Bill Belicheat's Cheatriots were 12-2 overall in the playoffs, and 3-0 in superbowls. But since the team was caught cheating in the middle of the 2007 NFL season, the Cheatriots are now 4-4 overall in the postseason, and 0-2 in the superbowl. If you choose not to see a connection there, then that's your prerogative. But then it's my prerogative to laugh at you, which I will most definitely do.

Also, I saw pointed out in that article interestingly that the Giants are 4-0 in the superbowl when Bill Belicheat is on the sidelines. That of course is 2-0 with Bellicheat as an assistant under Bill Parcells, and now 2-0 against Bellicheat's Cheatriots team. Maybe they can hire him as a strategic consultant or something if they ever make it back to the big game again, since it seems unlikely to this writer that the Cheatiots will make a return trip to the superbowl anytime soon.

Superbowl

Lest anyone have any doubts or be at all unclear about exactly what the problem is in Philadelphia with Eagles coach Andy Reid, one has only to look at this past weekend's superbowl to have it all clearly laid out. Unlike Giants' coach Tom Coughlin -- make that two-time Superbowl winning Giants' coach Tom Coughlin -- Andy Reid could never be a part of what the Giants just did, not only once, but twice within the span of five years. Andy Reid sleeps well at night knowing that he has won what, five NFC Easts in 12 years as Eagles head man, but he is simply unable to lead his team on a post-season run like we have been treated to watching Tom Coughlin do twice in very recent memory. And I dare say that Reid has had more talent come through the halls of the Linc over the past half a decade than Coughlin has had in New Jerseyork.

You want to know what we Philadelphians want, if "all" of Andy Reid's success here in Philly just isn't enough? I wish I had Tom Coughlin as my coach. Period. Sure, we would have to deal with the late-season collapses, and the disciplinary issues, and the too-tough mentality, etc. But Andy Reid gets all the complaints anyways, thanks to his consistently embarrassing defense, his highly questionable assistant coaching decisions, his ineptitude on game-day and countless other very noticeable weaknesses, all of which seem to be magnified with the bigger the game is, again the total opposite of Tom Coughlin and the Giants.

But enough about the Eagles. Let's talk about them Cheatriots. Another good showing, huh? It really is amazing how mediocre this team looks in big games when they don't know every single play the opposition is going to run, one after the next after the next. It really is amazing. And despite what many New Englanders out there will be screaming from the rooftops all this week ever since about 10pm local time on Sunday night, make no mistake about it: the Cheatriots needed this win. They needed it. They still need it. This team absolutely, positively needs to win another superbowl, to show the world that they actually have it in them to win one when they play by the rules. Right now, the legacy of the Cheatriots is more than merely questionable. That legacy is in downright mutiny right now. These guys won three superbowls in four years, each one by merely a field goal, and it turns out after the fact that they knew every single play their opponents were running all game long. And they were only winning by field goals? Now, since getting caught cheating and being forced to play by the same rules as everyone else does in their big games, the Cheatriots have found their way to two more superbowls -- both of which they were favored in, as they were playing each year a Giants squad that had had by all rights not nearly as good of a regular season as the Cheatriots had. For crying out loud, this year's Giants team became the first team in NFL history to win a superbowl after going just 9-7 in the regular season. Said another way, this Giants squad was the worst team ever to win a superbowl in the NFL. And what did the Cheatriots do against them when it all mattered most, after Gisele had sent her email and gotten everyone close to her to pray for her man to win his fourth championship?

Absolutely nothing. Yes, Tom Brady led his Cheatriots on an awesome, long drive to end the first half with a touchdown, and another similar drive to start the second half with another score and build his team an 8-point lead early in the third quarter. But take those just two drives away, and the vaunted Cheatiots offense didn't do shiat in this game. I mean, look at the facts -- the Cheats scored just 17 points total in the entire game, after scoring just 20 points when the two teams matched up earlier this season in Week 9 (and only 14 points in the 2007-2008 superbowl). The Cheats just did not click well on offense in the Superbowl, and in general they simply cannot do and have not done much in general against the Giants, one of the few good teams the Cheatriots played all this year.

Unlike the Eli Manning of old, Eli stepped up big time in this superbowl as he looked every bit the part of grizzled, consistent veteran. If you watched the game then you know that Eli didn't get rattled once, not even a little bit, and it was in fact Tom Brady and not Eli who threw the one dumb, off-balance, back-foot pass of the night, leading to an interception on a crucial drive where the Cheats needed to score to get the game back in control. But make no mistake about it -- and I don't care about dropped passes, liberal intentional grounding calls, as none of that changes this conclusion -- but Eli Manning outplayed Tom Brady in this superbowl, plain and simple. In fact, he did so twice this year. And if you watch this game, then you know that the game simply wasn't nearly as close as the score would indicate. The Giants utterly dominated in the first half, somehow going into the locker room with a 1-point deficit despite having held the ball nearly twice as long as the Cheatriots did during the first half of play. And then in the second half, Brady started off with that beautiful long scoring drive to put his team up 17-9 in the game, but after that point, Brady didn't have one highlight in the rest of the game, and the New England defense simply could not stop Eli Manning and the Giants backs and receivers from more or less moving up and down the field at will.

So there it is in a nutshell. The Cheatriots cheated for years and even then were only barely able to squeak out wins in their biggest games some years ago. Nowadays with their ability to steal their opponents' every play taken away from them, the Cheats are still obviously a good team, full of players with much talent on the offense. But the loss of guys like Teddy Bruschi, Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour and others have left this team with what can barely even be called a defense, and while knowing every play ahead of time might have been enough to make them look passable on Sunday, having to face every play without foreknowledge showed the Cheatriots for what they really are:

A second-rate team, in a second-rate conference, with a hideous excuse for a defense, and an offense with a number of strong pieces but one that simply did not -- and does not any longer -- get it done in the biggest of spots. It's pretty obvious at this point that the teams the Cheatriots beat in the superbowl in the early 2000s deserve restitution. February 3, 2002: New England 20, St. Louis 17. That Rams team was obviously far better than the Cheatriots, when you consider that the Cheats were observed filming the Rams' signs during the pregame walkthrough, tapes which NFL Commissioner Roger Gooddell immediately destroyed rather than admit specifically what the Cheatriots had stolen from the Rams. As far as I'm concerned, that 3-point win for the Cheats is more like a two-touchdown loss to a clearly better team, and the Rams should be recognized as having won two superbowls in three years with The Greatest Show on Turf. February 1, 2004 New England 32, Carolina 29. Here is another 3-point victory against a team with a superior defense and a thought-to-be inferior offense, but who surely would beaten the Cheatriots in a fair fight. And then of course there was February 6, 2005 New England 24, Philadelphia 21. Still another mere field goal margin of victory against a team that was obviously better than them, with the Cheats once again using foreknowledge of every single play run to build up a lead that the Eagles just ran out of time trying to come back from. Take the cheating out of that game, and one can only assume that the superior Eagles squad from that year would have overcome their coach's inability to prepare for game day to put in a double-digit victory and Philadelphia's only superbowl.

At 59 years old, Bill Belicheat still has the opportunity to coach a great many more years, even going to another team or starting over with a whole new nucleus of players, if he sees fit. But I got news for you, Cheatriots fans -- the window on the career of Tom Brady is almost all the way shut after this past weekend's debacle. Although the AFC is as weak as it's been in years, and there may not be any team in the Cheats' conference that is as good as the Packers, the Saints or the Giants over the next several years, the odds of this Cheatriots squad finding their way back to the superbowl are seeming slim to none in my eyes. And, like mostly everyone else out there living west of Route 91 in Connecticut, the thought of that good riddance of unscrupulous, conniving cheaters from the upper ranks of the NFL is enough to make almost all of us smile.

I'll always hate the Giants with nearly every fiber of my being, but it is clear as day that the right team won on Sunday. Congratulations to the 2011-2012 New York Giants, the only true champions to play in the superbowl this year.