Belichick yourself, before you wreck yo-self.

One thing is certain, the media has crowned the pats a dynasty and there's very little debate about it. I suppose it's because they've done what's considered the NFL standard for this elusive title: 3 Superbowls with a single core of players. Each decade has had one: packers, steelers, 49ers, cowboys, and now the pats. The pats have done it with three in four years, and I agree, it's more impressive due to the salary cap era. What makes it so impressive? Why is jack so uneasy about it? Why haven't I made a point yet?

There's a couple reasons to be uneasy about this whole "dynasty" talk.
1) While efficient, they've never been dominate. Ok, so the huge winning streak was nice, and yeah, they haven't lost a playoff game in their last nine tries. Wait a second, I guess you'd have to say that is dominate. Nevermind all that then. I will also say it's interesting that they've won 3 of the last 4 but didn't make the playoffs in the year they failed to win it all. I'd have to say that's one richard dent in the armor.

2) Star power
As much as we all hate to admit it, we are suckers for star power. I think the patriots doing it with zero star power and all on the team concept is fantastic. In this day and age of looking for dirt on championship teams, nothing bad can be said about the pats. A bunch of good guys doing it the right way. It's just weird how when you think of great sports teams, one tends to think of players first. It's interesting that the heyday of dynasty's would be the 80's and 90's and we apparently forgot to check what kind of people we were cheering for. Magic gettin' it done with 30 STD invested sluts in the hot tub, baseball was busy sticking needles in each other's butts in bathroom stalls, and Jordan was off betting on basketball. Even in football, Mr. Irvin snorted enough crack to kill livestock. Now, when a team does it as a team, you question their dynastytude? I say shame on you Fu, tisk tisk.

3) Three superbowls by a field goal each?
It took Martz the retard, a lucky break to beat an inferior panthers team, and a sickly, black McNabb to win these superbowls. Note - the media loves this team. However, when a team beats a heavy favorite for a title, then looks just as impressive the next year, they are still written off as a fluke team that got lucky. Note - the media hates ohio state football. I find this idea frustrating. Pats all team no stars, which is the same as the 2002-2003 buckeye football team. Yet one team is considered a dynasty and the other a lucky joke. I decided to tangent there, you eat like this!!!

My viewpoint is this: I don't like to denote teams as "dynasty" this and that. I'm just impressed with how the pats just keep winning and doing it the right way with a team concept. It's incredible to watch. It's more bizarre how the media just arbitrarily decides which teams are "good" and which are "lucky". Who decides this stuff?

Extra points
-I think TO's performance in the superbowl should go down as one of the top 3 moments in sports. In fact, it would be right up there with willis reed if the eagles had won. It's a shame it won't be remembered that way.
-Jack was exactly right about the media calling TO selfish, but if it was Favre they would have masturbated on his heroism. Maybe they're too busy felating him to realize their hypocrisy.
-Is there a more underrated college sports franchise than boston college? They are solid to good every year in football and basketball. Somehow they're always written off and never predicted to do anything. Even when they do something special, such as 20-0, they can't even get past number 4 in the polls? Insane. The problem is, the same people who write what team they decided is good are the same people who vote. Just so they can say, "see, I told you North Carolina is better than BC. Just look at the polls!!" Arg. [crap] I think BC should get more pub, and it's a shame they don't.