WFAA: Is Michael Moore Reporting?

Twenty years ago, Jerry Jones purchased the Dallas Cowboys. WFAA, the Dallas ABC affiliate, has created a week-long segment depicting the current state of "America's Team."

All reporters are taught to properly gather evidence, assess the collected information and then let the research lead you to a conclusion.

For this specific Cowboys’ series, Brett Shipp, a WFAA reporter, decided to go the Michael Moore route instead. In other words, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself, he created an opinionated conclusion and worked backwards from there.

Shipp's conclusion: Cowboy fans are turning on the franchise, and specifically, Jerry Jones.

He started the project by formulating his conclusion...and then spent time trying to create an argument that supported that belief. Not exactly reporting 101.

Shipp attempted to "summarize" his findings when he spoke with The Ticket this morning. During that conversation, Shipp stated:

“Dallas Cowboy fans no longer believe that this is 'America's Team.' People who supported Jerry Jones in the past are now turning on him.”

Those are pretty strong statements. Shipp must have some very telling data supporting that belief, right? Below are the published WFAA findings:

Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Dallas Cowboys?

72% Favorable
24% Unfavorable

So...Shipp's comments were based on the 24% of polled individuals? Really? I'm not a statistical genius, but I think that a 72% approval-rating seems quite good. Maybe it could be higher, but if I were paid to "report the findings," I wouldn't feel comfortable reporting that "Cowboy fans are turning on their team," at least not based on these poll results. Hell, Obama’s approval rating recently dipped below 60%.

Interested in another contradictory nugget? In 2008, the Dallas Cowboys sold more merchandise than any other NFL team...again.

The sky is falling on Jerry Jones – but luckily – people are buying Dallas Cowboy umbrellas to protect themselves!

Just wait - it gets funnier.

Shipp continued this morning by proclaiming that:

"Most loyal Cowboy fans think that 'Jerry crossed the line' with his new stadium. Most fans that have been lifelong followers are not renewing their season tickets."

Again - very strong statement. Apparently, "most" loyal Cowboy fans are so turned off by the new stadium that they are just walking away from the organization. Surely Shipp has some strong evidence to support that claim. From the WFAA website:

Will the Stadium be good or bad for the fans?

65% Good
29% Bad

C’mon, Shipp…help a brotha out! Honestly, I'm expecting Ashton Kutcher to rip off his Brett-Shipp-mask screaming, "you just got PUNKED!"

Ok, ok...I need to take a deep breath. I'll be right back.

(...walking around...breathing...listening to Enya to calm down)

Ok, I'm back. Where were we? Oh, that's right - Brett Shipp is insane! Seriously, he's lost it! Just to summarize/paraphrase:

Brett Shipp: "Cowboy fans are turning on the Cowboy franchise."
Poll Results: 72% polled still feel favorable towards the team.
Miscellaneous: Cowboys sold more merchandise in 2008 than any other NFL franchise.

(head spinning)

Brett Shipp: "Most loyal fans are refusing to get 'on-board' with the new stadium."
Poll Results: 65% polled feel that the stadium will be good for fans.
Miscellaneous: Please see WFAA poll results.

(my head just exploded)

Here are the complete WFAA results:

Pretty amazing stuff. Another interesting note: they only polled 400 people in the metroplex. 400! DFW has a population near the $6 million mark. I'm not sure how any logical person could arrive at any solid conclusions after polling just .001% of the targeted population.

I don’t believe that logic is Shipp's strong-point...and I actually have evidence to support it!

BASADSKMVDAA Awards - Part One

My buddies Ben and Skin recently asked, "who is the most valuable athlete in the DFW Metroplex?" They didn't ask "who is the best player/athlete," they asked about the "most valuable."

Webster's Definition of Value:
a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged
In other words, value directly relates to price. Dirk is a great player - but he is paid like a great player. As a result, he is not the most valuable player in the metroplex - at least not for this exercise.

Dallas Sports Keg will be taking on a 3-part series over the next few days titled: Ben-and-Skin's-and-Dallas-Sports-Keg's-Most-Valuable-DFW-Athlete-Award...also known as BASADSKMVDAA. Not the catchiest moniker - but we're not a freakin' advertising agency! We will examine the Mavericks, Cowboys and Rangers (since Bob Sturm is the only guy in town that watches hockey - we chose not to include the Stars in this exercise).

Part One: Mavericks

Brandon Bass - $826k
19 minutes/game
8.6 points
4.4 rebounds

To compare
Erick Dampier - $9.55 mm
23.6 minutes/game
5.5 points/game
7.2 rebounds/game

Other than the Dampier household, Maverick fans believe that Bass is the better option. If you take salaries into account - it's absolutely no contest.

- Side Note -
When Erick had his first child, do you think that he was only allowed to hold him while standing in a jump-house? Seriously, there is no way the family entrusted stonehands with a baby on any non-bouncy flooring, right? Or maybe they created the "Erick-baby-holding-room" IN the house - installed bouncy floors and walls - that way, when Erick inevitably dropped the infant, he would simply bounce around the room until he finally came to rest.

You know - maybe they could design the room similar to a basketball-return system - the one where when you shoot and the ball travels down a tunnel of netting only to return to the original shooting location. They could build the room angled in a way that would allow the baby to be dropped - bounce harmlessly off the floor, walls and ceiling - before rolling back to Damp's feet. At that point, Erick could again pick up the baby - and seconds later - when he dropped him again, the process would repeat! I am almost positive that the Dampier house has a room like this. If not, he should. Seriously - we are saving lives here!

- Back to original programming -

Dampier makes about 11.5 times more than Bass despite producing similar results. Bass wins this contest - stonehands down.

Mavericks #2
JJ Barea - $1.5 mm
19 minutes/game
7.4 points
3.3 assists
1.40 turnovers

Jason Kidd - $21.3 mm
35 minutes/game
9 points
8.4 assists
2.33 turnovers

Barea's numbers factored out assuming that he also averaged 35 minutes/game, as Kidd does:

Barea (projected totals given 35 minutes/game)
13.6 points (.389 points/minute x 35 minutes)
6.1 assists (.174 assists/minute x 35 minutes)
2.58 turnovers (.074 turnovers/game x 35 minutes)

Obviously, we have to make several assumptions to build these types of comparisons. Could Kidd still hold the "lunch-pale" title if he was only asked to play 20 minutes/game? Would Barea's tiny Puerto-Rican heart hold up for 35 minutes each night? We could go on and on...

But regardless of the assumptions made, Barea appears to be a bargain. He makes about 14-times less than Kidd - yet he scores at a higher rate. Though Kidd still maintains an advantage in the assist department, their overall numbers remain fairly comparable.

Barea scores more points.
Kidd dishes out more assists.
Both turn the ball over at a similar rate.
One makes $21.3 million; one makes $1.5 million.

Bass and Barea are obviously the two most valuable players on the current Mavericks' roster. Deciding between the two was difficult - but please enter our thought process:

Brandon Bass is a 6'8, 240-pound black guy. He is supposed to be a bad-ass athlete. It would actually be an embarrassment to him (and his family) if he wasn't a professional athlete. Barea is a 5'10 Puerto-Rican. He should be pimpin' someone's ride - not playing in the NBA.

When Bass walks into the gym, everyone looks and says, "Man...that dude must play football or basketball. He's a beast!" When Barea enters a gym, you want to hand him your dirty towel and let him know that "shower #3 has some kind of weird fungus and you should probably do some scrubbing."

Congratulations, JJ Barea. By winning the Mavericks' most valuable player award, you have been entered into the BASADSKMVDAA Finals where you will face off against the most valuable players selected from the Dallas Cowboys and the Texas Rangers.

Is It March Yet?

During the college football season, what conversation dominated the sports world? Was it whether the SEC was stronger than the Big 12? Did most people spend the majority of their time dissecting just how bad the Big 10 had become? Was water-cooler talk relegated to Tim Tebow-related topics?

Nope. The entire season revolved around one item: the BCS.

Everyone discussed it - and isn't that just what the NCAA wanted? They wanted college football to be a topic of conversation. They wanted people calling into talk-shows demanding a playoff. They want people to get up on Monday morning and check the BCS standing to determine who "deserves" to play in the BCS Championship this week.

And it works. The BCS creates conversation. Personally, I would love to see a college-football playoff system. Just the thought of it creates a Pavlov's-dog-like reaction. I get excited.

Having said that, if I wanted to argue against a college-football playoff, I could do so rather easily. It would be a very short and concise four-word argument: regular-season college-basketball.

Seriously - there is no stronger argument for the BCS system than presenting regular-season college-basketball. It's simply unwatchable. BCS-supporters believe that a football playoff system would render the regular-season somewhat meaningless...ala college basketball.

To provide proof, here are 10 things that I would do in my house before watching a regular-season NCAA basketball game:

1. sleep
2. organize my garage
3. watch an "Housewives of Orange County" marathon
4. shop online with my wife
5. read (...a book...with actual chapters - not Sports Illustrated)
6. time how long it takes for water to boil (I swear - it takes longer if you watch it)
7. turn my house alarm on...and then slowly creep around the furniture towards the kitchen to see how far I can get before being spotted by the motion-detector (I have made it to the dining-table twice - but I will have to improve my barrel roll in order to advance any farther)
8. watch any Jeneane Garofalo movie
9 .clean (anything)
10. watch hockey

In other words, watching regular-season college-basketball sucks. I wish it didn't - but it really does. There is simply no reason to watch any college basketball before the NCAA Tournament. None.

Some of my buddies have tried to provide me with a rational explanation behind watching some bball before the Big Dance:

"Blair, man, you HAVE to watch some basketball before the tournament or your bracket will suck."

Easy response: my bracket will suck anyway.
Painful response: do you know who is going to win your office pool this year? That's right, it's Megan - the receptionist. You know, the one that thought we were filling out a survey on which school mascots were the prettiest. Yep, she is going to win. And she has never watched a college basketball game in her life. Ever.

So - no, you do not need to watch regular-season basketball to build a winning bracket.

"But what about seeing the unique college environments like seeing Duke fans jumping up and down from start to finish? Doesn't that get you excited?"

Response: No, but it does remind that attending Duke must really suck. Seriously - the football program goes 4-8...and that's considered a "good" year! Duke students camp out before regular-season basketball games for a team that hasn't won anything in eight years. It's actually quite depressing.

Side note: (Tournament upset pick - Duke loses in the second round. I know, the tournament seeding isn't done yet, but it doesn't matter. Give me the field vs. Duke in the second round...it's gonna happen)

Look - the NCAA Tournament is one of my favorite events of year. I love watching the little, unknown school go all Josh Howard on us (ie...going from relatively unknown - to convincing everyone that he is "for real" - only to remember why he was relatively unknown to begin with). March is an amazing time. But November, December, January and February are not.

Now if I haven't gotten you pumped to see the Saturday matchup between DePaul and Pittsburgh or Memphis at Utah, I don't know what else to say. If you need me, I'll be in the other room - mastering my barrel roll.

Do or Die (Literally)

Do or Die (Literally)

As the Mavericks continued their domination over subpar teams last night, I decided to watch one of the coolest shows on tv: Live Wire on the NFL Network. If you haven't checked it out, you should.

The NFL Network "wires" players before the game to record their verbal exchanges before, during and after each contest. Last night's show highlighted guys like Leon Washington and Jay Cutler talking in the huddle, before the play, etc...

As I watched the hour-long presentation, something really resonated with me:every single team had loud, emotional pre-game speeches. It was generally in the mold of:

"This is our house! This is what he have been working for all year! We are not going to let these guys take this away from us!"

Whatever the specific message, it was clear: every team did it. Every team got together, jumped around and got pumped before the game. During the game, every team had guys that were encouraging their teammates while on the sideline. Every team had a few guys yelling up and down the roster at critical points of the game.

And in every game, one of the teams lost.

I know, I couldn't believe it either. How did it happen?

How, after hearing the amazingly original and inspiring, "This is OUR house" speeches, did 50% of the teams lose?

How, after seeing a teammate proclaim that it is "our time" did the guys not pull together to secure a victory? Were they not listening? After all, it was "their" time!

At first, I could not figure it out. I mean, if I learned that someone was coming into my house and was going to steal my dream, I would be pissed. To quote A Night at the Roxbury, "You can't take away our dreams...because we're like sleeping when we have them!"

And secondly, how dare he come into my house to steal my dreams. No way I would let that happen.

But as I continued to watch, I began to understand just how half of the teams in question had lost. You see, the Tennessee Titans had proclaimed their playoff game as "their time" in "their house." There was just one problem: Ray Lewis stood on the opposing sideline.

Lewis is like the Anthony Robbins of NFL pre-game speeches. On this day, not only did Ray-Ray produce his infamous "crazy eyes" during his speech, he also directly refuted the previous Titans' claim by telling his teammates that "this is our time."

I don't know who awards teams with the "our time" label, but there appeared to be a mix-up. Tennessee thought that it was "their time" and also proclaimed the field to be "their house." Lewis simply shouted that it was "our time." The Titans appeared to have the advantage, two to one:

Breakdown
"Our House" + "Our Time" > "Our Time"

But in the end, Baltimore won the game. After re-watching the episode, I found the loophole that Baltimore's Lewis had exposed.

Yes, the Titans did state that it was "their time" and "their house;" however, Lewis used his wild-card. You see, Ray Lewis was accused of murder in 2000. As a result, his speech carried much more significance: if you did not follow Ray's lead, there was a chance that you could be shot. Based on the new information:

New Breakdown
"Our Time" + "Our House" < "Our Time" + stated-by-a-guy-formerly-accused-of-murder

Taking this specific case-study into consideration, I have created a few rules for the relationship between motivational talks and winning:

1) You must give a motivational talk before and during each game (every team did so)
2) If you motivate your team throughout the game, you have a 50% chance of winning
3) The number of pre-game claims that you make directly translates into wins
* Unless the opposing claim is made by a former murder-suspect...in which case, the opposing claim cannot be defeated (fear of being murdered > wanting to win)

To sum up (back to reality), every single team in the NFL has a guy or two that gives pre-game speeches. Every single team in the NFL has a guy or two that walks up and down the sideline "motivating" his teammates. Despite all of the efforts to motivate and energize their teammates, 50% of the "motivators" lose each week.

The game is about execution, not motivation. Teams that execute at a high level win games. Teams that don't, lose.

Chicken or the Egg

Dallas Sports Keg

Tony Romo spoke with Babe Laufenberg on Sunday evening. He discussed a multitude of items including T.O. and Jessica Simpson. The meat of the interview though, focused on leadership. Romo is now getting grilled for a few of his answers.

Romo said:

"You wanna know why Michael Jordan was a great leader? He won six NBA championships. Then, all of a sudden, when he gets in people's faces, he's a great leader...A great leader is someone who wins, and you figure out how to win. Some people, it's getting in people's faces. Some people, it's being positive. Other people, it's walking the line and doing it the right way."

People want Romo to be fiery. They want to see him yelling at his teammates on the sideline. Fans want him to grab T.O. by the facemask when he runs the wrong route. In other words, they want him to be the stereotypical, Brian Dawkins I’m-all-up-in-your-grill type of leader.

Would I like to see Romo become that fiery on-field general? Sure. Unfortuantely, that's just not how the world works. People lead in different ways and there are many ways for one to achieve successful leadership.

Many people seem to think that a fiery-player = good-leader.

Let me ask you this: would you rather have Jake Delhomme as your quarterback?

If you want fiery, he is your man. Delhomme is known for his on-field tantrums, his willingness to call guys out in the middle of the game and for wearing his heart on his sleeve. He must be what a team needs if they want to win big games.

How did that work out during the playoffs this year? Let's see - he was really fiery, but more in the sense of going-down-in-flames. He threw five interceptions in Carolina's first playoff game this year, resulting in a 33-13 loss. Was he not "fiery" enough? Did he not hold others accountable? Or did he simply play poorly?

Was Romo a poor leader when he led the team to a 13-3 record in 2007?
Was he a poor leader when played through an injured back to beat the defending Super Bowl champion New York Giants in December of this year?
Was Romo not "fiery" enough to motivate the Cowboys' defense as they allowed Baltimore to rush for 180+ yards within the last five minutes of the Ravens' game?

Leadership comes from on-the-field results. It doesn't come from a guy getting in someone's face after a dropped pass. It doesn't come from throwing your helmet when you walk to the sideline.

It comes from winning, plain and simple. Romo has not won in the playoffs, and hence, is not considered a good leader. He has been labeled as a guy that "can't win the big game."

Do you know who else supposedly "could not win the big game?” Steve Young, Roger Staubach, John Elway and Peyton Manning. They were all considered good players that couldn't win the games that counted most - until they did. Suddenly, they transformed into some of the game’s greatest leaders.

Romo will be considered a leader when, and only when, he wins in the playoffs. He will suddenly go from a good quarterback to a great leader. When Romo says that leadership "comes from winning," he is absolutely right. In 2009, if Romo becomes a boisterous player seen yelling at guys on the sideline…but the Cowboys don’t make the playoffs, no one will then consider Tony a great leader.

You don't hear about Jake Delhomme's leadership abilities when he is throwing 5 interceptions in a playoff game, you hear about it when the Panthers win. You didn't hear about Peyton Manning's fiery leadership abilities when he was losing his first three playoff games - you heard about his propensity to lose his composure while cracking under pressure. Zach Thomas was a great leader in Miami – when they were good. In Dallas, when the team missed the playoffs, suddenly Thomas’ leadership qualities were a no-show. Did he forget how to lead?

Even as recently as last year, Eli Manning was thought to be incapable to leading a team. In midseason, most New York media questioned why the Giants drafted Eli over Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers. Inexplicably, the Giants won the Super Bowl and Eli was then considered a great leader. So what did he do? He must have yelled at his offensive linemen while on the sideline, right? Surely he grabbed Plaxico by the facemask and laid down the law.

Nope: his persona remained the same. His "dumb-face" and droop-shoulders still made consistent appearances throughout the playoffs. What did he change? His on-field performance. He made smart decisions. He didn't turn the ball over. He won.

When Romo and the Cowboys win in the playoffs, there will be no more talk of Romo's inability to lead. His "impartial" attitude will transition to "cool under pressure." His on-field presence will transform from a guy that “doesn’t care” to a quarterback who simply "leads by example.”

Even Al “a few fries short of a happy meal” Davis knows how Romo can become a good leader:

“Just win, baby!”

Eight is Less Than Nine

The number eight has some significance. There are eight planets in the solar system (now that Pluto is no longer considered a planet). Spiders have eight legs. Octopus...es have eight tentacles. There are Seven Wonders of the World...and that's just one less than eight!

Ok, maybe eight is not the most significant number out there. It's definitely no 7 or 4, but for Cowboys' fans, the number eight should carry extensive significance. Since Dallas lost to Philadelphia, knocking them out of the playoffs, a grass-root movement has begun within the fan-base. The message: Tony Romo sucks!

When I see some random blog suggesting that Dallas will "never win with Romo" or hear a radio personality proclaim that "Romo will never win the big game," I usually just ignore it. But over the last few weeks, it appears that the movement is picking up steam.

Nick Eatman, of the Dallas Cowboys official website, had this recent snippet:

"The Cowboys are not in the playoffs because their quarterback isn't the savior we thought he was."

Cedric Golden of the Austin-American Statesman wrote this:

"Romo's actions the last two seasons suggest he isn't the type capable of putting a team on his back and carrying it to a Super Bowl...Romo's not Aikman. Not even close. "

The mention of Aikman brings us back to the eight. We aren't talking about Aikman's uniform number. Do you know the "eight" that we are referencing? Don't worry, it does not appear that many others do either.

Since Aikman retired ten years ago, and before Romo, the Cowboys started eight different quarterbacks. Eight. And of those eight, how many made the pro-bowl? Zero? How many led the team to the playoffs? One (Quincy Carter...during one flukish year). Here are the eight guys that started in between Aikman and Romo:

Randall Cunningham
Quincy Carter
Clint Stoerner
Ryan Leaf
Chad Hutchinson
Vinny Testaverde
Drew Henson
Drew Bledsoe

Look at that list again. Look at it hard. After seeing that pathetic group of guys no longer in the league, are we still on-board with bashing Romo? Have we all forgotten just how bad it feels to enter a game knowing that the quarterback has absolutely no chance of winning a game?

Seriously, we used to play the "Q-Car" drinking game: every time he missed a wide-open receiver, we had to take a shot. If you ever watched Quincy Carter play, you know that we rarely made it to the second-half before passing out!

With Vinny, the game was a little different: we had to guess which defensive lineman would sack him before each play. If I got it right, my buddies had to drink. Again, with Sloth Testaverde out there, just about any defensive lineman was a safe call.

Romo is the best quarterback that the Cowboys have had in a decade, but many are ready to move on to the next guy? What the hell is wrong with you people? Did you forget about this?

Cowboys' Record before Romo (since Aikman): 40-55 (.421 win%)
Cowboys' Record with Romo as the starter: 27-14 (.658 win%)

Has Romo won the "big playoff game" during his first 2.5 years as a starter? No, he hasn't. But guess what? Peyton Manning played in 112 games before winning his first playoff game. 112! But you are ready to write Romo off after 41?

Manning lost his first three playoff games. During those games, he averaged a QB-Rating of 58. Romo, in his first two playoff games, averaged QB-Rating was 77.

Manning compiled a 26-24 record (.520 win%) during his first three years (including playoffs).
Romo has compiled a 27-14 record (.658 win%) during his first three years (including playoffs).

But let's turn the page on Romo...or better yet, let's just close the book. Obviously, if you don't have immediate success in the playoffs, you will never succeed in the playoffs.

In two-and-a-half years as the Cowboys' starting quarterback, Romo has been selected for two Pro-Bowls. The eight guys before him? Zero.
Romo has led the Cowboys to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons for the first time in more than a decade.
Romo has produced a Top-7 QB Rating in each of his three seasons. The previous eight quarterbacks? They ranked 26th in the NFL.

If you want to write off a guy that has been, unequivocally, the best Cowboys' quarterback since Aikman, knock yourself out. If you want to run a guy off after he has taken a losing franchise to three winning seasons in a row, go for it. But I actually enjoy watching a quarterback who can complete passes to open receivers. I like entering a game knowing that our quarterback is easily one of the best ten QBs in the league. I enjoy actually seeing the team in big games, something that was rarely the case before he arrived.

Just remember, without Romo, eight might have been nine.

Super Bowl 43: Two Life-Changing Minutes

Two Life-Changing Minutes

2:30 left in the game...
Cardinals lead 23-20...
Pittsburgh faces 1st-and-20 on their own 12-yard-line...

...we all know what happened next. The Steelers marched down the field, scored the winning touchdown and the rest is history. Literally.

But more than anytime in my recent Super Bowl memory did this two minutes affect the legacy of so many different players, groups and organizations. You can never single out one specific play or one series that "won" or "lost" a game, but what if the last two minutes of Super Bowl 43 had gone a little differently?

Travel back to the 4th quarter. Pittsburgh had just been penalized for holding, backing them up to their own 12-yard-line. At this time, there were more game storylines than halftime analysts, and that is saying quite a bit:

1. "He can't win the big one!"
Roethlisberger was two minutes away from being labeled a Super Bowl choke-artist. I know that sounds odd, considering the fact that Big Ben has won more games at this point in his career than any other quarterback, but think back to Super Bowl 40: Roethlisberger was 9-21 for 123 yards, 0 touchdowns and 2 interceptions. Luckily for him, his defense and running game sealed the Steelers' victory and made Ben's struggles a back-story.

At the 2:30 mark in the 4th quarter against the Cardinals, Roethlisberger was 16-23 for 172 yards. He had thrown no touchdowns and one interception. Had Pittsburgh not converted the 1st-and-20 from their own 12, Roethlisberger would have faced Tony Romo-esque questioning after the game:

"Ben, why can't you play well in the Super Bowl?"

Sports-talk would have followed with, "Is Roethlisberger truly a 'big-game' quarterback? He has thrown three interceptions and no touchdown during his two Super Bowl appearances. Without a great defense, is he that good?"

Yep, Ben was two minutes away from being labeled as the "guy who can't show up when it matters."

2. By Steel Curtain, do you mean Satin?
The lauded Pittsburgh Steelers defense, the #1-ranked unit in the NFL, failed when it counted most. Outside of James Harrison's amazing interception return for a touchdown, the Cardinals abused the Pittsburgh defense.

At this point in the game, the "Steel Curtain" had allowed Warner to complete 70% of his passes while throwing for 344 yards and 3 touchdowns. The Steelers allowed 407 yards of offense and had tallied just one sack. They blew a 13-point, 4th-quarter lead by giving up 233 yards and 14 points...in the 4th quarter alone! They were two minutes away from dropping the "Steel Curtain" label and adding the "defense-that-allowed-the-largest-comeback-in-Super-Bowl-history" moniker.

3. Riding off into the sunset
Kurt Warner's story remains amazing. Going from grocery sacker to NFL MVP to Super Bowl Champion...that's stuff that legends are made of. Leading the Arizona Cardinals to a Super Bowl victory against the Steelers - that might have made him immortal.

Conversations swirled around the sportsworld this week assessing whether Warner should be considered a Hall of Fame player. As odd as it sounds, many agreed that he was "in-with-a-win" but "out-with-a-loss."

At the 2:00 mark, Warner had completed 29 of 41 passes for 344 yards. He had thrown three touchdowns and only one interception. In other words, Warner had treated the league's best defense like Joe and Doug treated "Squeeks" in Baseketball. He slapped them around. With just under three minutes left, Warner connected on a 64-yard-touchdown pass to Larry Fitzgerald to complete the comeback.

If the Cardinals had pulled it out, Warner probably wins his second Super Bowl MVP along with his second Championship. He now holds three of the top-five passing yard totals in Super Bowl history. Warner's postseason record would have jumped to 9-2, meaning that his playoff winning percentage (.818) would have superceded that of Aikman, Bradshaw and Montana. Kurt Warner was two minutes away from riding off into the sunset as the most clutch quarterback in NFL history.

4. Can't Take It Away
The Arizona Cardinals franchise has been a punch-line for years. Other than the Detroit Lions, the Cardinals have been the easiest layup on most NFL team schedules. Until this year.

While the Cardinals still earned signficant respect by putting together an impropable playoff run, nothing builds credibility like a Super Bowl Trophy. The Cardinals overcame a 100-yard-interception for a touchdown. They overcame facing the #1 NFL defense. They battled for most of the game without getting any production from their star wide-receiver, Larry Fitzgerald. Arizona has been a franchise that folds before the game starts, but on this evening, they refused to quit.

The Cardinals were two minutes away from earning a label that cannot be taken away: 2008 NFL Champions.

Finale
There are limitless angles and infinate storylines describing this game. It may be months, years or even decades before we fully understand the rammifications of the last two minutes in Super Bowl 43.