Maybe I missed an earlier column where you said you'd do this, but I love the non-use of Washington's racist nickname.

I agree with Rob...and for not drawing it to our attention.

Scott

hey King: I think Pittsburgh and Cincinnnati are in the AFC North, not the AFC South.

Other than that though, I think I'm with you on all your predictions; maybe it'll be Indy vs. Cincy in the AFC championship, though.

Dear King:

I like looking at the experts picks, but I'd much rather see you examine a format where the experts are picking against the spread. Unless you're in a suicide pool (in which case you only need one lock a week anyway), I think everyone is much more interested in wins against the spread, which would be an interesting facet to add for next year.

Best regards,

Joseph

Btw, I don't even bet, but I'd like to see the added complexity, so hopefully Salon won't consider it an implied approval of illegal wagering.

Here's what King wrote on September 30:

And to answer a question I've gotten in a few e-mails, yes, I've decided to stop using the Washington football team's racist nickname. Call me self-righteous if you want. I just can't stand to type it anymore.

The newspaper here in Portland, The Oregonian made the same move several years ago, and they've stopped using similar nicknames, like the Cleveland baseball team's nickname, though I think they still call Notre Dame "The Fighting People From the British Isles Who Aren't Actually British."

You may want to start putting quotation marks around "Experts" when you refer to your Panel O'Experts if Salisbury won with 180 because I got 178 in my office pool and I sat out the first week. (I got the lowest score for that week which was 5). And I didn't even win. My friend Mike won with 179 and he doesn't even watch football.

Experts. Pish posh.

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.

the Jags had a nice season after a few down years but guess what - as long as Tom Brady is in uniform and Bill Belichick is on the sideline - no inexperienced team from Florida has any chance in hell of winning in Foxboro in January - I don't even like the Patriots but as a sports fan I am compelled to respect their excellence - will they go all the way? probably not but the pundits forget the 1988 49ers who in the middle of their dynasty struggled through a 10-6 season in which they were written off several times - but in January when it really counted they kicked it up a notch - just ask Boomer Esiason, Ickey Woods and Sam Wyche

I actually hate picking against the spread, at least for NFL games. The spreads are so often under 7 points that you are essentially picking the winner anyways. It also turns the pick 'em into "how right or wrong are the sports books", not "who is the better team".

I managed to get 169 picks right this year. I normally only watch one NFL game a week, the Bears. I also always pick the Bears to win, which for a change, actually helped me this year.

So will next year introduce the TWO most coin-flippingest kids in the contest? I do believe we need some gender parity from the Kaufman family. My prediction: King girl beats King boy.

Hey King-

This doesn't really have anything to do with your column, but I can no longer find a link by which to email you.

I am pretty sure that you have previously talked about the NFL's record on hiring minority coaches and referred to the fact that it's good to have such a policy in place as the NFL now has because it forces some out of the box thinking. I believe that I have seen you reason that by at least requiring that all teams interview a minority candidate, it might help promote not only diversity but also prevent teams from recycling old and not very good head coaches. You know, like Wade Phillips.

Anyway, now that the Chiefs have all but hired Herm Edwards, and the Colts are Tomy Dungy's second go 'round, I am wondering, are we now in an era where NFL teams are simply recycling African-American head coaches just like they do the white ones?