I did'nt want to say it until after the game (the players sometimes hear
these kinds of things and it might affect their play if heard
beforehand). But there were several psychodynamic factors working
against the Pats (in no particular order)
1. Randy Moss was a member of the infamous Vikings squad that lost to
Atlanta after going 16-0. To have him on the Pats is sort of like having
Michael Vick for a backup qb. There would be a certain amount of
"scandalous nature" to this individual that could harm the team's
chances, even if he was only on the sidelines. FOOTBALL NOW HAS ITS
SERGIO-FORMERLY-PHIL-MICKELSON, AND HIS NAME IS RANDY MOSS (Sergio
Garcia is generally perceived as the greatest golfer to never win a
major, and Moss is perhaps the greatest offensive football player to
never win the Super Bowl).
2. New England has had successful teams partly on the same terms that
San Francisco won so often in the 1980's: it's a live-and-let-live
society that doesn't attempt to alienate people without kids. (S.F.
certainly did NOT win due to fags dicking themselves in the ass, after
all!) When the "fertility oriented" news media started coming out with
glossy stories about handing out condoms in Portland ME middle schools,
it totally diverted the true social basis of a winning society: the
hygienic, untainted physical environment of northern New England
reflects a strong social element of people who just don't have kids, yet
are able to get along with people who do have kids. This was another
nail in the coffin of the Pats football team. THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY
MINNESOTA (IN ALL SPORTS AND NATIIONAL POLITICS) IS THE PERENNIAL LOSER
- Minnesota (especially Minneapolis) IS THE MOST HOSTILE SOCIETY IN ALL
AMERICA TOWARDS PEOPLE WITHOUT CHILDREN.
3. The New York Giants had fans that in virtually any other situation
would never be rooting for them. I for one, would never root for the
Giants against just about any other team except the Patriots! It's not
that I hate the Patriots -- it's just that there have been plenty of
other good teams in the sense that I don't think NE is necessarily the
"best ever" and as such 'deserved' to have a perfect season. What's
more, when playing a team like the Giants (who 1- are from a large,
successful city and 2-have already won two Super Bowls, it's not as if
the Pats were playing some Cinderella team who's never won, like if they
had ended up playing the San Diego Chargers or some similar situation --
in which case the Pats would have had a much better chance.
4. Like Tony Dungey said the year before, it's generally BETTER for even
the best team to lose at least one game, in that if they're perfect they
are under much more personal pressure during the post-season. In another
sense thus, New England "did an Ohio State" -- a team that 'everyone
thought would run away with it and wasn't able to come through after
all'. Even Miami Dolphins fans readily admit that there are often
complex factors coming together to complete a perfect season. For
example, their perfect season was capped by beating the MN Vikings -- a
team that has had tremendous odds against it ever winning the big game
(SEE ABOVE).
Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>ne-patriots