Joseph wrote: I think everyone is much more interested in wins against the spread ...

I put that to a vote among readers a couple of years ago, and the result was a vote for picks straight up, not against the spread, by a 2-1 margin.

I think the oft-heard refrain "The NFL [or the NCAA Tournament] would be nothing without gambling" is a vast overstatement. A lot of fans bet on NFL games, but I don't think it's anything close to half of them. And a lot of people who bet on NFL games -- in fact, pretty much all of them that I've ever met -- do so as an add-on to their fandom. They don't bet on cricket or lacrosse or other sports they're not interested in. They bet on the NFL because they're interested in it, not the other way around.

I personally am uninterested in the spread, except as a measure of the popular mood about a game, which I get just as effectively from the "Yahoo Users" picks, for two reasons. One, I don't bet. Two, paying attention to the spread leaves me rooting for something different from what the players or teams are trying to do.

If I'm rooting for the Colts to win, I'm rooting for the Colts to do what they're trying to do. They're trying to win. If I'm rooting for them to win by 10 or more, that's not what they're trying to accomplish. They might be perfectly happy to sit on a nine-point lead. I don't like that disconnect, the removal of the striving from the equation. It's like the difference between hoping your friend will get that promotion he's going for and hoping he'll meet a man in a green shirt and brown shoes before midnight, with him not knowing you're hoping for that. He's trying to get the promotion, and you're right there with him. Meeting a guy in a green shirt and brown shoes before midnight is just a random event.

It's the same reason I'm not interested in fantasy sports. I'm rooting for some guy to gain a lot of yards or whatever, but the goal is for the team to win the game. It's one big side bet. I don't care.

Having said all that, I have no problem with gambling, and don't understand why betting on football games is illegal anywhere.

On another matter, the AFC North/South brain cramp has been fixed.

Thanks for pointing out that error. Had a brain cramp there about the Broncos. The mistake has been fixed, and an official correction notice should be in the works.

A clarification and a reply re Baron's letter: If (and this is a big if) Nicholson is convicted and Paterno continues to defend him, then yes Paterno should resign. But merely defending one of his players, however poorly phrased, is admirable.

Nicholson is not Paterno's player. He's a Florida State player.

I'd also say that defending your player would be "[Player] is a good kid, and this doesn't sound like the kind of thing he'd do." Not, "Hey, a cute girl knocks on your door, what are you supposed to do?"

So yes, I think "He's a good kid, I don't think he did it" would be significantly better. I can't speak for the NOW chief, but I would think so. To echo melle3 above, expressing belief in a kid's innocence is a lot different than saying, essentially, "So yeah he probably raped her, but hey, she asked for it."

CB wrote: "These players, by the time they arrive on campus, are adults. They are not blank slates: they have ingrained attitudes and beliefs that an 80-year-old man can not be expected to truly comprehend (Joe is a '50s guy). The people responsible for insuring that these young men respect women are their parents, teachers, etc."

CB, I'm fascinated by your idea that by the time a young man is a freshman in college, it's too late to educate him!

Grumpy, I think you misread my last two paragraphs.

Sorry about the link to the porn site, if that's what it is. I found that image through Google image search, and went straight to the image without looking at the site. I didn't notice the word "nude" in the URL. Strange that that word's in the URL, since she's decidedly not nude in the photo, but the point is, I'll find a work- and family-friendly URL for a a photo of our Nat's winsome mug.