Something I heard after the game made the muffed hold a little more understandable. Apparently due to Romo's recent difficulties in hanging on to the ball (he had a rash of unforced fumbles at the end of the year), the Tuna had him practicing all week with wet balls and gloves on, and was apparently brow-beating him all week about hanging on to the ball. Thus, at the end of the game instead of not thinking and just doing what he's done countless times all season, I'd imagine that the only thing on Romo's mind was "hang on to the ball, please don't drop this, just grab it and hang on, please God don't let me fumble." His heart had to be racing and his hands had to be trembling, with the added pressure placed on him all week to not fumble being a significant contributing factor. Lo and behold, we all know what happened.

Of course there's no way to find out what would have happened, but I have to think the additional pressure not to fumble was the main reason he fumbled.

Everyone wants to keep imagining a college football playoff system akin to the NCAA hoops tournament, but (and although this is rather obvious), there can be no comparison.

First off, "cinderella" teams from mid-major conferences actually have a chance in college hoops because only 5 players are on the court, and only 12 are on the team. Compare this to 22 in football (counting offense and defense ... 33 if you count special teams) and team sizes of 60+. With that many players involved, it becomes nearly impossible for mid-majors to pull off the kind of upsets Boise State pulled. That was literally an outlier, and should not be the model for a future playoff system. 999 times out of 1000, the best mid-majors will get crushed by the best powerhouses in college football.

Secondly, Boise State had about a month to prepare for one game against a known opponent. This wouldn't be the case in a playoff, where they'd have to prepare for a new powerhouse each week. I just can't see a Boise State rolling through a college playoff stacked with powerhouses.

Finally, anyone who says Boise State deserves the national title because they went undefeated is either being disingenuous or obtuse. They played a schedule rife with cupcakes and also-rans all season long. Yes, not losing a game all year is worthy of praise, but not a national title. You have to beat some worthy opponents, not just one.

As a lifelong Bears fan who will be sitting outside with the 60,000 other Grabowskis at a frigid Soldier Field on Sunday afternoon, I wish I was confident enough to make a sincere prediction. But I have no idea what's going to happen. Unlike the (warning: obligatory reference ahead) '85 Bears, a team that was so head-and-shoulders above the rest of the league that the fun of watching lied in seeing just how badly they would embarass their opponents, watching this Bears team play is a white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat, heart-palpitation-inducing experience. In fact, the Chicago Park District (which runs Soldier Field) would be wise to stock up on defibrillators on Sunday. Seriously.

Rex Grossman could go 4-20 for 50 yards and 4 picks and I wouldn't be shocked, just as easily as he could go 25-35 for 300+ and 3 tuddies. The Saints could razzle-dazzle and dink-and-dunk their way around the Bears depleted defense (no Mike Brown is huge, no Tommie Harris is monumental), just as easily as the Bears speedy D could pull it together and torment the Saints' young playmakers all afternoon. People like to talk about "Bear weather" and how the Saints are a dome team, but make no mistake about it -- this Bears team is not your papa Bear's Bears team. They are not a 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-frost, sock-you-in-the-mouth blue collar football team. They are light, quick, and versatile. Thus, the weather argument is a pretty stale and uninformed one.

I can't wait for Sunday. Win or lose, it's going to be a thrilling ride (hopefully ... provided the Bears don't allow the Saints to score on their first play from scrimmage, a la Steve Smith last year, which completely sucked the wind out of the crowd). And that's what it's all about, ain't it?

Yes, the Beloved did lose one game that season. I probably should have said that the fun lied in seeing how badly they would embarass their playoff opponents (Bears 21 - Giants 0; Bears 24 - Rams 0; Bears 46 - Patriots 10). And since when is a team's single season dominance judged by their performance the next season? I suppose you'd say if the 1995-96 Bulls were nothing special because they lost 10 games that year.

King obviously gets it. The readers here obviously get it. Anyone with half a brain who understands economics at its most rudimentary level gets it.

But major national news publications do not ... they actually print these ridiculous press releases by CG&Xmas as NEWS. What happened to journalistic integrity?

Isn't the name of the firm that uses a holiday largely built on lies (santa, jesus (oops)) somewhat of a clue that these numbers are such absolute bunkum that they deserve to be mocked? And I wonder how much productivity is lost reading lost productivity reports put out by CG&Xmas?