Super Bowl time

Whattup people. Finally, it's time for the Super Bowl. There has been a nauseating amount of coverage all over the place, including defenses, quarterbacks, players' families, fanbases, etc. One story line no one seems to know what to do with is the fact that we have 2 black coaches for the first time in the big game. On the one hand, if we talk about this as something "special," we're essentially acknowledging the inferiority of black coaches, right? I remember a Simpsons episode where Bart got an A and his parents put it on the refrigerator. Lisa got mad because all of her accomplishments go unnoticed, but the first time Bart does something right, they glorify him. Homer essentially said it's because Bart is an idiot. If we glorify black coaches for doing something right, isn't the underlying connotation that we're surprised it happened? More importantly, aren't we throwing away the whole concept of equality and being color blind by judging people's accomplishments relative to others of their race?

On the other hand, we have to fill 2 weeks with news, which is never an easy task (except for the Pats/Eagles Super Bowl, where TO injury updates and dynasty talk was actually relevant to the game). Also, if we don't make a big deal about this, we're missing the chance to shove it in the face of the NFL, a league that has been so historically reluctant to hire black coaches that rules have been implemented to force owners to interview minorities for vacancies, simply because they probably wouldn't do so otherwise. So, where should we stand on this? Allow me to answer my own question.

Let me preface this by saying loud that I'm black and I'm proud (RIP James Brown). Anyway, I do feel a big deal needs to be made of this, but only because of the other circumstances around the league. Here are 3 points that will make that last sentence make sense:

1. Like I said, owners rarely give black coaches a chance

2. In our society, we tend to innately compare people within their race, particularly if they're the minority. For example, Adam Morrison came out of college and couldn't rebound or pass. He was a one-dribble shooter with a vast array of scoring options (floaters, runners, spotting up, curling off screens, etc.) but even though he had decent range, he was much more effective inside 20 feet. For some reason, we all called him the next Larry Bird, when his game was much more similar to someone like Allan Houston. Obviously, that reason is because he's white.

3. If Jim Mora wasn't a jackass and never made that comment about wanting to coach his alma mater, I'm fairly certain the first 2 coaches to be canned this year would've been African Americans (Art Shell and Dennis Green). Throw in Romeo Crennel taking a step back in Cleveland, and that's a lot of bad press for black coaches.

With that said, I think it's important to acknowledge the significance of two black coaches going against each other in the Super Bowl. Normally, I wouldn't, but isn't it possible that owners compare black coaches to other black coaches the same way we compare white basketball players to other white basketball players even when they really have nothing in common? Isn't it possible that owners who are already reluctant to give African Americans a chance would be even more hesitant to do so if they can't shake the miserable failures of Shell and Green from their memories? I'm not saying it's important like I'm some kind of civil rights activist, but I'm saying that African Americans deserve a chance, and if their failures are given intense media attention (and they were... the Raiders were blasted all year for having the worst team in the league and possibly the worst offense ever and the Cardinals were considered underachievers because too many idiots thought they could make the playoffs even with a rookie qb and no offense live, and even Romeo Crennel was under fire in only his 2nd year as the coach for the worst franchise in the AFC... and lets face it, no one from the Parcells/Belichick school of coaching should be under fire after 2 years), their success should be acknowledged as well to embed it in the mind of NFL owners that they can coach just as well as white men.

Granted, I hope for a day where none of that will matter, where the failure of a few black coaches wouldn't have any effect on future candidates. Personally, I don't think we're there yet. If this were any other year, I wouldn't think Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy needed special recognition, and we can just be happy that two good guys made it. However, I think there's a possibility that Shell, Green, and Crennel would pop into the mind of owners interviewing minorities, giving them more justification for their racist hiring procedures (and there's really no other way to put it, sadly), so we need to embrace this as a step towards equality. The message isn't that black coaches are in the Super Bowl because they are better than white coaches (so hopefully Wilbon stops with the whole "black coaches have a higher winning percentage" crap, although I'm not even sure if that's true any more after this year), or that they're different. The message is IT'S THE SAME THING. Some African American coaches will fail (Shell, Green), and others will succeed (Smith, Dungy). It's the same crapshoot you get with white coaches. With equal media attention given to the successful ones and the failures, hopefully that point will get across and coaching candidates can all be considered equally, with the right job going to the man with the best credentials and the best football mind, regardless of skin color.

Anyway, enough of that. On to the game. I'm taking the Colts with the points. Why? a few reasons.

1. Rex Grossman struggles against any thing that resembles a pass rush. Having Freeney and Mathis attacking him all day certainly doesn't bode well

2. The Bears are really a big play offense. They rarely sustain drives of the 12 play, 84 yard variety. They rely too much on going deep to compensate for Grossman's mediocre (at best) accuracy, and the Colts' D is just too fast to give up big plays.

3. I know they kept Brees in check, but the fact is the Bears struggle against the pass. Steve Smith killed them last year. Tim Rattay scorched them for 3 4th quarter touchdowns this year. Their secondary is very average without Mike Brown. That's not enough to stop Peyton Manning, who has all the confidence in the world after beating Belichick, not to mention he can put less pressure on himself because he knows he finally has a solid defense.

4. I don't think the Bears have such a huge advantage in the running game that every one seems to think they have. The Colts have good balance. They use Addai on the stretch plays to get outside, and if that's not working, they can switch to Rhodes for a more physical, up the middle attack (like they did against Baltimore on that game sealing field goal drive). If Urlacher and Briggs are too fast and Addai can't turn the corner, they can still use Rhodes to exploit Tommie Harris' absence (something Sean Peyton should've lost his Coach of the Year award for not doing enough).

So, I think Peyton gets his win and silences his critics, Tony Dungy gets the redemption he deserves, Edgerrin James finally wonders aloud why the hell he took the money and ran to Arizona. Colts 27, Bears 14. Reggie Wayne MVP (going against the grain there).

Enjoy the game fellas, and enjoy Prince at halftime. Hey, I know halftime shows suck, but if there's one thing I know (other than the fact that halftime shows suck), it's that Prince is a great performer. If he can't breathe life into the program, they might as well scrap it and opt for a magic show or something.