FACTOIDS FROM THE ELECTION THAT MAY NOT MEAN ANYTHING

Hello, Stat Man John, never to be called John the Stat Man, here. Last Tuesday an historic election took place in these good old United States of America. But we are not here to talk politics. You see, naturally after such a historic event, many people came up to "The Stat Man" asking, "What does this election mean for me, John Q. Football Fan?" So of course "The Stat Man" was more than happy to oblige. Here's what I uncovered.

• Of the XLII Super Bowls, 14 were played with a Democratic president in office.
• In the inauguration years the AFC and NFC have both won five Super Bowls.
• In those 14 Democratic Super Bowls, the NFC won nine, for a .642 winning percentage. While over half, not overly dominating. However...
• In the last Democratic run in the Oval Office, the NFC went 6-2, with Denver being the only AFC team to win during the Clinton administration.
• Under Jimmy Carter, the AFC won three of four Super Bowls, and before that the NFC won both Super Bowls under the Democratic chief.
  
• Under Lyndon Johnson Super Bowls I and II were taken by the Packers, then the Republicans took over....
• Under Richard Milhouse Nixon the AFC won four of five Super Bowls.
• Under Gerald Ford the AFC was 4-0 in Super Bowls .
• Carter took office and the AFC won three of four.
  
• Then under Ronald Reagan the NFC won six of eight Super Bowls.
• Under Bush, Sr, the NFC went 4-0.
• Then, as mentioned under Clinton, the NFC took six of eight.
  
• Under "Dubya" the AFC won six of eight.
• Meaning the odds are good that one of the conferences will dominate the Obama administration and more likely than not it will be the NFC, but then again...
  
• When the White House changes over to the other party, the AFC has won four of five Super Bowls. Bad news for fans of NFC teams, but...
• If there were any NFC team that could win the Super Bowl, odds are on either the Cowboys or the Packers.
• The Cowboys have won four Super Bowls, all under Democratic presidents. In fact they are 4-1 with a Democrat in the White House, while they were 0-2 with a Republican sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  
• Meanwhile the Packers have been to four Super Bowls, winning 3, all with a Democrat in office.
  
• As mentioned earlier, the NFC has won nine of the 14 Super Bowls under a Democratic president. The Packers and Cowboys have combined to win seven of those nine.
• But it gets worse for Giants fans. The Giants have never been to a Super Bowl with a Democrat in office, annnnnnddddd......
• The Giants had the distinct privilege of playing in both the first and last Super Bowls of the Bush administration, in fact....
• The G-Men have only played in Super Bowls with a Bush in office, if you count the one they won while George, Sr. was Reagan's Vice President. And how about this...
  
• Although not related to the presidency, the Giants have only won Super Bowls when New York has had a Democratic Governor. The one Super Bowl the Giants played under a Republican New York Governor, they were trounced by the Ravens. Something to think about when Giants fans vote for the next governor. Right now, the governor of New York is a Democrat.
• As far as using the governors as a guide, teams who play in a state with a Republican governor under a Democratic president are 7-7 in Super Bowls.
• Teams who play in a state with Democratic governor under a Democratic President are 6-6.
• In 14 Super Bowls under a Democratic president, the Super Bowl winner has come from a state with a Democratic governor only six times.
  
• In three of those victories, the loser was also from a state with a Democratic governor. Which of course means, in those three games, a team from a state with a Democratic governor had to win.
• Now if the AFC is to win, the odds are in favor of that team coming out of the AFC West. That's right, the AFC West. In the 14 Super Bowls under a Democratic regime, the AFC has been represented by the AFC West seven, count 'em, seven times.
  
• Of course the AFC West teams have only managed a 3-4 record in those 7 appearances, and the Broncos have two of those three wins. So watch out for the Chargers and Broncos.
  
• But the Titans seem to be the AFC favorite at the moment. The Titans have only appeared in one Super Bowl, but it was under a Democrat, plus...
• While the Giants played in the first and last Super Bowls of the "Dubya" administration, if the Titans were to get to the Super Bowl, they will have played in the last Super Bowl of the last Democrat administration and the first Super Bowl of the new Democrat administration.
• Now the Patriots have been to six Super Bowls, but only one under a Democrat, and they lost that one.
• The Colts franchise has been to three Super Bowls, not one under a Democratic president.
• If there's one franchise that should be more or less unphased by the election it is the Steelers. Pittsburgh has been to six Super Bowls, but three have been with a Republican president, of course meaning the other three have been with a Democrat.
• Of course the only Super Bowl the Steelers lost was under a Democratic president.
  
• And finally, under a Democrat, teams in the eastern third of the United States are 4-4 in Super Bowls. The western third is 2-5 and the middle third of the U.S. is 8-5. Meaning "real" America has the best chance of going to and winning the Super Bowl.
  

So, all in all, nothing that conclusive can be drawn from this information, except that the odds of the Giants winning, or even going to the Super Bowl are not great. And odds are that either the NFC or AFC will win at least 75% of the Super Bowls while Obama is in office. But if you were to pick a Super Bowl from all this information, I'd say either Pittsburgh, Tennessee or San Diego versus Dallas, Green Bay, or Chicago. But, based on these stats, if we were to have to pick, based on Obama's election is San Diego vs. Dallas, with the Chargers winning.

ANOTHER STUPOR BOWL

Well, well, well, the big game is almost upon us and while there are people that are excited, quite a few others, lets call them Buffalo, could care less about the combatants or the outcome of this game. In fact, they would probably not be opposed to Arizona Stadium, or whatever it's called, imploding as everyone looked on. So this blog is dedicated to those folks. Now, I'm not saying if you do care about this game this post won't be relevant, just that the folks who don't care may need it more. So without further adieu, it's the Super Bowl drinking game! That's right here are several themes or ideas to get you well on your way to passing out by halftime (you may want to start a bit later than kickoff if you wanna catch Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers).

THE RIVALRY?
Have you noticed how the various "media" outlets are trying to really work up the Boston-New York rivalry angle? This is not Yankees-Red Sox folks. Speaking as a lifelong Pats fan, I can attest that I am more indifferent to New York football teams than anything. I mean I don't care for either, but it's not like the kind of loathing I reserve for the Yanks. Plus, although they represent those cities, neither team actually plays in Boston or New York, so hang your hat on that! So every time the "talent" tries to play up this foolishness go ahead and take a drink. And go ahead and take an extra swig if they use a graphic.

DAS BOOT!
Another good one will be to go ahead and drink every time Brady's ankle "injury" is brought up. Finish your beer if they show that fun shot of him walking, hooded, in NYC, with flowers. The severity of Tommy's injury remains a mystery and I'm sure it'll be talked about as much as possible by the"talking heads". That means the announcers, not the wacky 80s band. It's a full beer if they flash the Web MD thing for it, so be ready. Also why not go ahead and apply this to Tommy's soar shoulder as well, except double the drink and double the pain! And if they make a connection to Schilling's bloody sock somehow, well, just drink and drink.

MOUTHIN' OFF
Of course no Super Bowl would be complete without idiots running their mouths off. Now before everyone jumps down "Bitterness"'proverbial throat here, let me just say, we are not saying that we think that Plaxiglass and Osi U-Menorah are idiots because they lied or anything. No, no, it's just not smart to bring it up is all. You see, cause we are not down on the field, we can neither confirm nor deny these allegations made by the G-Men. However, we would probably lean in their favor as Belichik does often instill cheap and dirty style of football, and this would not surprise us, or the rest of the football loving world, in the least. We can confirm however that Plaxiglass is a dirty player. Yes, it's true, he does not have good hygiene. Also if tensions run high and there's "extracurricular activities" after a play involving the Light-Umenyiora or Burress-Harrison dynamic than get chugging kids. So be on the lookout for a late hit by Hot Rod and why not throw in a few swigs everytime they mention Paxiglass' projected score.

FLASHBACKS
These two squadrons have been to 8 Super Bowls and have 5 Super Bowl Trophies to show for it, so there are bound to be flashbacks of their previous triumphs and defeats. This is three drinks for every time these are shown. Anytime folks! And if it's a montage of several games spliced together, drink the 3 drinks for every different game that is shown in said flashback montage. Half a beer for every time they flash back to the week 17 skirmish between the two squads as well.

SHOCK-EEEEEEEEEYYYYY!
And of course the Shockey drinking game is always in affect, effect?, ah who cares! Get ready to do some drinking since he 's not gonna suit for this one.

OLDIES BUT GOODIES:
Check out these fun ones from the past that are also usable. And if you need help finding a good brew, I'm sure any of these wonderful chaps wouldn't mind helping you out. (So it's a shameless plug, shoot me.)

Here's to great beer and good commercials!

RETURN OF THE MAILBAG!

Yes it has been way too long since we here at "Bitterness" opened the old mail bag, but it's a new year, new location, etcetera, etcetera. Now the mailbag is overflowing, and we'd love to answer every single piece of mail, but unfortunately that's not gonna happen. So we won't be touching on many things that have happened since the last "mail call" like the Sawx winning it all, Brittney Spears lost in a downward spiral, the writer's strike, caucuses, or is it caucusi? Anyways, on to the mail!

You really miscalled that Giants-Packers game huh? Where's the respect for the Giants, after knocking off your "Gunslinger of Destiny" at Lambeau nonetheless?- Casey C., Crabcake, MD

Okay, okay, so maybe, just maybe, I was a bit too harsh on the Giants. I'm still not convinced there as good as everyone in the media is making them out to be and all of sudden everyone is buying into Tom "turn and" Coughlin's philosophy. Apparently this erases the past few years that would always end with Tommy C's job in question and the doubting of Eli as a big time quarterback. But it seems that the Packers and the "Gunslinger of Destiny" were really just trying to hand this game to the G-Men. And really not the best coaching decision to let Lawrence "Time after" Tynes even attempt that long field goal in OT after his Jay Feely-esque performance to that point. If he missed you know the Coughlin's job jeopardy rumors would have been in full swing. But I do apologize for the over-harshness with which I criticized the Giants last week, I guess.

Are you worried the Patriots won't be able to finish the perfect run against yet another "giant" underdog? They have come down to earth in the last few weeks and the Giants already gave them a scare in the Meadowlands. I mean they barely edged out a hobbled Chargers team in the AFC Championship game, for crying out loud! -Shawne M., Whale's Vagina, CA

I don't know if 'd use the word "worried", Shawne, but I'm definitely not as confident as I would have been say 3 months ago. Now while the Chargers were hobbled on offense, their defense was intact and it's usually pretty solid, so the Patriots lack of scoring does not concern me. Their defense however is a whole 'nother story altogether. I've noticed it being a bit lax at times and not as "great" as everyone seems to think. But you have to remember that in their previous Super Bowl runs under Beli-cheat they rarely blew teams out, and the close game was the norm. They play down to their opponents and play hard when it counts. Plus Eli is due for a mental breakdown in the desert, I'm sure of it.

Hey what happened to the good old days of "Bitterness" when there was more than just football posts? I want to know if you have any predictions for, say, the Grammy's?- Justin T., Hollyweird, CA

A prediction for the Grammy's? You mean other than I won't be watching?

Now that you've moved the "Bitterness" headquarters does this mean we are gonna be bombarded with "Boston" speak and sports bias under the guise of covering all the bases? Cause someone already owns that plot of land on the worldwide web.-Bill S., Los Angeles, CA
Not much more than usual Bill. Although I am headed to a Celtics game tonight, which means I may start blogging about the NBA, and that's without even getting a lobotomy. But you won't hear me talking about how Beantown is the best sports city around right now (sorry Kansas City, it was close though) or about planning a trip to Vegas, or throwing some inside jokes at you. Now this won't be your grandfather's "Bitterness" sure, but we hope to stick to our roots, and really give you a bitter look from all angles. And of course at least one quote a week from Rounders, where they invented Texas Hold'em. What's with all the mail from Cali, huh?

I hate the Patriots and the Giants, so I'll just be looking to get sloshed during this one and hope there will be lots of ads with monkeys during the big game. But I was wondering what your five least interesting Super Bowls of all time would be? Going into the game that is, not after the game was played. -Thurman T., Orchard Park, NY
Well Thurman before I dive into your question, which is spectacular by the way, I wanna take some time for a shameless plug. You see, sometime before the big game, we will give you a way to whittle away the time if you really just don't want to watch. But on to your question. Here are the five Super Bowls I was least interested in watching, in no particular order. Or are they? No, they're not.

1. Super Bowl XXXVII: Raiders vs. Buccaneers. This was actually the first one that popped into my head, as I had a general disdain for both squads. Hard to root for Warren Sapp or the Raiders.
   
2. Super Bowl XXXV: Giants vs. Ravens. Many thought this would be a defensive struggle, but it was the Giants who had a defensive struggle. I hated the Ravens and was bored with the Giants. And now it's sad to think that not getting that Super Bowl ring could be what keeps Jason Sehorn out of the Hall of Fame. That or the fact he was not that good.
3. Super Bowl XXX: Cowboys vs. Steelers. The hype of this one alone, pitting two old school dynasties up against one another, was enough to make me less than enthused to watch this one. Plus both of these teams are in the "Top 5 Teams I Hate" list, so naturally I wanted neither one of them to win.
4. Super Bowl XXXIX: 49ers vs. Chargers. I had never really liked San Fran, and while it was gonna be fun to root for the underdog, I wasn't too pumped for this one cuz 1) the underdog was another California team, blaaahhhh! and c) you knew there was no way they'd beat the Niners.
5. Super Bowl XXVIII: Bills vs. Cowboys. Now, ever since I really started getting into football I have hated the 'Boys, and being a Patriots fan I had a dislike of the Bills and that God forsaken K-Gun, at the time. But why this one, rather than the previous meeting in XXVII. Well the third time around there was a little part of me that wanted the Bills to do it, and get it over with already, but they didn't, instead they got shellacked, so I figured the second time around would be no different.

It's almost February and there hasn't been word one about college basketball, what gives? I needs the "Bitterness" take on the mid-majors and the bubble watch, etc.! -Harold A., Parts Unknown?
Well, as you know, we packed up and moved our World Headquarters, which is very time and energy consuming. Plus writing for your enjoyment is not our day job, at least until you freeloaders start coughing up some cash to read this. But yes our time and energy are limited and we have been in a college basketball-less bubble for a bit now, and hope to remedy this soon. But for now I will say Florida's always a solid pick to go far, Vanderbilt, Arizona State and Baylor are probably as dismal as ever, Ohio State is most likely gonna run right through the Big Ten, especially over lowly Indiana, and don't worry Marquette fans you'll get there eventually.

I seem to remember last year you said something about giving the NHL a shot, but that seemed to never come to fruition. Any chance we'll get some "Bitterness" insight on hockey?- Guy L., Coldtown, ON

New Year's Resolution: We'll no longer make promises we can't keep. Um, I would say we may have snippets from the ice, but don't get your hopes up. Although we do love to blog about playoff beards. Go Whalers!

Well that's gonna do it for this mail bag, hope you enjoyed. Have a wonderful today and a "guten" tomorrow!