THE MORNINGS AFTER

This is what I imagine most closely resembles the scene in Boston over the last two days, that is if the portrayal by the national media, as well as the lingering discomfort in my gut, are correct (either that, or we’re all just eating too many beans).

In the years since moving to New York, I've been sadly removed from the daily ringer that is Boston sports. The best thing about living in Boston, aside from being able to get anywhere in 15 minutes (unless you take a wrong turn. Then you're looking at a half hour at least), is taking a step outside in the morning and immediately knowing if the team(s) won or lost the previous night. It's plastered over everyone's faces. You can see it in body language. It's affecting traffic flow. It’s tangible. You can feel it. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you could smell it. Boston has no cologne for athletics. Yesterday and today, the scent was so pungent I could smell it from here. Apparently, so could everyone else.

The media blitz following the Colts 35-34 last-minute victory over the Patriots Sunday night is nothing short of Michael Jackson-esque. Rumor has it Lou Dobbs is returning to faux-journalism just to faux-cover it (more than likely, Dobbs will theorize an unlikely hidden culprit: illegal immigrant workers who did a shoddy job assembling Bill Belichick's headset, causing it to malfunction and lead to confusion on the play call). Even those unaccustomed to second-guessing got in on the act. Wolf Blitzer was so caught up, he actually asked a follow up question today.

Despite so many people choosing to weigh in on what will go down as Bill Belichick's infamous decision to go for it on 4th and 2 from his own 28, their seems to be fairly limited disagreement on what the correct call should have been, and even less analysis as to why.

The majority of pundits, analysts, and commentators seem to be in unanimous agreement that Belichick made the wrong call on Sunday Night Football (or as NBC has ill-advisedly chosen to abbreviate it, “SNF”, most likely in an attempt to link their product to the more widely-known American staples associated with that acronym: chewing tobacco and hard-core pornography).

It stands to figure the reason everyone is so unusually aligned in a collective mindset is that there really is no other option to consider. Belichick made a decision that yielded unsuccessful results. The Patriots were winning. Belichick chose to go for it. They didn't get it. Subsequently, the Colts scored and won the game. Since we know the outcome is negative, the decision that lead to it must therefore be at fault.

I was perfectly happy (if you can call watching your team suffer a crushing defeat after being up by as many as 17 points not once but twice "happy") to let it end at that and not think about it anymore, until I started listening to the echo-chamber of the second-guessers. And a strange thing happened: the more I listen, the less convinced I become. The tipping point was hearing Trent Dilfer rant on how there is no excuse for Belichick's decision. I have few rules in life, but one is "if you find yourself in agreement with Trent Dilfer, it’s time to reassess."

In the litany of angry rages and hate posts I've trudged through, I've yet to hear once convincing argument as to why the Patriots should have punted - and I already thought they should have!

Using the fact that they lost as a rationale for punting does not suit me as a valid argument, because you weren't privy to that information beforehand. Acceptable arguments would include: "The Patriots picked Peyton twice already", "The Colts only had 1 timeout remaining", "I'm tired and I want to go to bed". Though not necessarily good arguments, they are arguments nonetheless. "Because they lost" isn't. That's a result, not a reason. You can’t use a word to define itself.

You’d think that with the overwhelming support for punting the football, we would be subject to more than our fair share people praising the Patriots defense. Yet I’ve yet to hear one person express even the slightest bit of confidence in the New England D. All that’s being said is “you can’t stop Peyton Manning from the 28”. That’s true, and I don’t think the Patriots are foolish enough to think they could. But that’s not the argument for punting. That argument is “could the Patriots stop Manning at all?” And so far, no one seems to be saying they could have.

Which made me wonder, why is everyone so resoundingly upset? Even people who aren't Patriots fans seem to be angered by Belichick's decision. And so far all I can come up with is because it was unconventional.

As sports fans, we have a general desire to see teams tested. We want to see the game go long, to see the competitors pushed to their limits. Belichick's choice was one that robbed us of some of that. We expected the Pats to punt, and for the Colts to (presumably) have to go 65-70 yards for a touchdown. This was the narrative we were anticipating, it's the one we’re comfortable with, and it's one we know how to get excited for. We know when the highs are lows are going to hit, like the build up in a horror movie, or the punchline to a joke. And while we were preparing ourselves for this final clash, the game was decided before we could fully process what was happening. No one was ready for this, and as a result, people couldn't get excited for it and process it accordingly, and that left them feeling a little jilted.

Most of us fashion ourselves armchair quarterbacks. Backseat drivers. We all have opinions, theories, ideas, but few of us are generally in the position to be able to put them to the test. Thus, we rely on others to test our theories. Popular theory seemed to be that the Patriots should have punted. Because they didn't, that theory wasn't tested, and we never got to see the result. So people aren't as mad at the decision that was made as they are that their decision wasn't made.

More basically: we are upset because we didn't get to see what would have happened if the Patriots punted. No one thought the Patriots could stop the colts from their own 28. But from the Colts 30ish (presumably)? That's something we’re left wondering.

We know Belichick made the wrong decision. But what we don't know is if there was a right decision. Maybe the Pats punt and the Colts score and win anyway. On two of their three previous drives, the Colts scored touchdowns in UNDER 2 minutes and 5 seconds, without the aid of multiple timeouts. Maybe that happens again. So either way, the Patriots lose. If the Pats had gotten the first down, the game would have been over, and NO ONE would have second-guessed it.

So we end up in this land of sports purgatory, bickering about what should have happened, wondering what could have been. There’s little we can look to for support and guidance, except maybe this

While searching through less-than-controversial commentary and mindless soundbites, I mistakenly came across this article that was somewhat interesting. And while these are only projections based on broad statistics, it at least gives us something to consider while we can’t help but think, “what if…"