Student Life Archives

Can one World Series championship really turn around the fortune of a franchise? Can this one glorious year alter fans’ psyches and convince them that they’ve entered a new generation, one void of the heart-breaking moments that have characterized the Boston Red Sox fandom experience?

In 2004 the Boston Red Sox finally won the World Series. Between the years of 1903 and 1918, the Red Sox captured five championships, but it took 86 years for the team to bring home number six.

The franchise’s struggles from 1918 to 2003 have been well-documented. The team has reached the championship round in four separate years but lost in a decisive 7th game each time. The St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Red Sox in 1946 and 1967. The Cincinnati Reds took home the hardware in 1975, despite Sox catcher Carlton Fisk’s heroic extra-inning homer that forced game seven. And no Boston fan will forget the loss to the New York Mets in 1986, highlighted by Bill Buckner’s error in the 10th inning of Game six, costing them the game.

Aside from David Ortiz now being the most eligible bachelor in Boston, how has the 2004 World Championship transformed the expectations of a Boston Red Sox fan?

“I always had a lot of faith even before they won the World Series, but I think for most people, including myself, the championship has increased it because they finally proved that they can beat the Yankees and not choke in critical situations,” said sophomore Alex Sakowitz, from Needham, MA.

Do Boston fans have more confidence in their team or is there is still an element of distrust, the lingering anticipation of disappointment? Freshman Alex Tannenbaum, from Newton, MA, answered that question defiantly.

“I don’t expect a complete meltdown anymore,” said Tannenbaum.

Sophomore Miles Bellman, from Wayland, MA, agrees.

“I’ve seen them comeback,” said Bellman. “Now I know they can do anything.”

But not all Red Sox fans are able to turn the page on 86 years of frustration. Junior April Seligman, from Sherborn, MA, said, “Trends don’t just change that quickly. I hope with all my heart that they will win and will cry [in happiness] when the season comes to an end, but somewhere inside of me I do expect them to lose, despite my undying hopefulness.”

The 2005 regular season culminates this weekend with a Boston-New York three-game series at Fenway Park, with the division crown and remaining American League playoff berths still at stake. Trailing the Yankees by one game, and tied for the wild card lead with the Cleveland Indians as of Thursday, how do fans think the Red Sox will finish this season?

Senior Josh Lubatkin, from Worcester, MA, has complete confidence in his team.

“[We’ll win the] World Series. Our pitching is questionable at best, but nobody’s [pitching is] really that good, and no staff can keep our bats down,” boasted Lubatkin.

Others are not so sure.

“I’m not confident. I guess we’ll lose in the World Series. Actually, I have no prediction on it,” said Bellman.

And what about the hated rival New York Yankees? Has interest/hatred towards the ‘Evil Empire’ diminished since their comeback against them last year and World Series victory? The answer would be a resounding no.

“I have never been one to fear them,” said Seligman. “But I don’t really have any respect for them, and probably never will.”

Sakowitz said, “I follow the Yankees just as much [as the Red Sox] and I take just as much pleasure in their losing as I used to. We don’t really care about them anymore in a sense, even though we obviously want to beat them.”

With an 86-year curse finally eclipsed, the results of the 2005 season will be very telling for what fans should expect from the team in the near future. Was 2004 the start of a new dynasty, or a hiccup in their history of futility?

“I love the Sox more than I could ever love any inhuman thing, and honestly the goal is always to win and we should never have lower standards just because we won the year before,” crisply concluded Seligman.

Dan Daranciang

In the summer of 1999, a group of twenty women captured the attention and minds of a country as they battled for the World Cup title. People of all shapes and sizes were glued to their television sets as the United States women’s soccer team steamrolled over the competition en route to Gold. That year’s World Cup victory was not due to Mia Hamm’s leg or Brandi Chastain’s clutch penalty shot; the game’s real MVP was none other than Richard Millhouse Nixon.

Twenty-seven years earlier, it was Nixon who signed Title IX into law as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. Beginning on June 23, 1972, all educational programs that received federal assistance were obligated to offer equal opportunities to both men and women. Title IX is not just about sports, but the athletic aspect of it seems to generate the most controversy. It might be a good time now to sit back and consider why. Why should this be a problem? Shouldn’t men and women be afforded the same opportunities in all areas of life? Of course it is more complicated than that, but doesn’t it essentially boil down to what is fair and what isn’t?

According to Title IX, if an institution sponsors an athletic program, it is obligated to: 1) effectively accommodate the athletic interest and abilities of men and women to the extent necessary to provide equal athletic opportunities; 2) provide athletic scholarship dollars in proportion to the percentage of men and women in the intercollegiate athletics program; and 3) comply with the eleven other program areas, including equipment and supplies, recruitment, and coaching.

As a result of opening up opportunities for women, many feel that this is closing doors for men, however. In order to fulfill the proportionality requirement and reach the necessary quotas of the three-part test of having equal representation and resources for both genders, colleges are reducing the number of men in sports by cutting smaller and lower-revenue teams, such as men’s wrestling, gymnastics, and hockey. Some men then lose the opportunity to participate in athletics in college, and many others lose potential scholarships.

Some people feel that, in a sense, the legislation only helps white suburban females, while discriminating against inner-city black males, who, for many, were depending on these scholarship opportunities. It seems that the legislation is achieving its goals through “addition by subtraction”.

At this time it is important to remember that Title IX is not only opening up doors in athletics, but in all educational endeavors. It is with this in mind that the true benefits of Title IX come to fruition. College enrollment among female high school graduates went from 43% to 63% between 1973 and 1994. In 1971, 18% of young women and 26% of young men completed four or more years of college, while now the percentage of men and women earning a bachelors degree is equal at 27%.

The successes of Title IX flow over to graduate and professional degrees as well. Women now receive 38% of medical diplomas, versus 9% in 1972. Thirty-eight percent of all dental degrees go to women now, while only 1% were earned by women in 1972. In 1972 women accounted for 7% of law degrees and now women receive 43% of law degrees. In 1993-1994, 45% of doctoral degrees went to woman, up from 25% in 1977.

As much as Title IX has helped level the academic playing field, the strides it has created in terms of athletic opportunities for women cannot be ignored. In 1971, 25,000 women participated in intercollegiate athletics, now 100,000 women participate. In 1995, 37% of college-athlete students were female, compared to 15% in 1972. In 1971, only 300,000 high school girls participated in sports, 7.5 % of all high-school athletes. Currently, over 2.4 million high school girls represent 39% of all high school athletes.

Despite all this, gender inequalities abound still today. The long held fallacy that women are less interested in sports than men can no longer be used as an argument.

“The argument that men are more inclined towards sports is irrelevant,” said freshman David Straszheim. “Statistically men are more inclined towards mechanical engineering, but no one would dare suggest that individual female scholars should therefore have fewer opportunities to pursue that discipline.”

Just because men have held a monopoly over sports for centuries, does not mean that women are not interested or inclined to participate in sports. Women suffer from a lack of opportunity and encouragement and not from a lack of interest. A recent study shows that women who participate in athletics are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, become pregnant, or drop out of school. It is apparent that sports have positive effects on the participating athletes and such benefits should not be closed off to women.

The real problem lies in big-time college sports, another major issue in itself. Football accounts for most of the gender inequities that exist today. While a pro football roster holds 53 players, Division I college football teams give out 85 scholarships and consist of 100 uniformed players. In addition, college football teams spend an average of $192,400 a year on recruitment and put players in expensive hotels the night before home games.

This excess spending could be better used for other sports with less available funds, like wrestling. Instead college officials blame women for the shutting down of “smaller” men’s teams. The college officials justify the excessive spending by stating that football is the monetary lifeline for many athletic departments.

In 1995, a study found that of the nation’s big-time college football programs, 67% of them do not cover its own expenses, let alone pay for other sports. In addition, 35% of these big-time programs run with an average annual deficit of $1.1 million. The colleges should stop crying over how the women are ruining their schools and commit more funds to smaller sports and less money to the deficit-ridden football programs they care so much about.

The past 32 years have been filled with numerous successes and achievements for women. More women are in college and in the work force than ever before, but not all of the goals have been fulfilled. Women make up half of the labor market, but are still underrepresented in jobs in the scientific fields, which is where success lies in the information age. While women have reached milestones in equal education and in labor force involvement, women still earn 80% or less in pay compared to males with the same education. Title IX needs to stay intact to achieve these goals. It has done so much in such a little amount of time, but there is much more to be accomplished.

Winning a $290 pot with 5-4 suit is akin to watching “The Day After Tomorrow.” Yeah, you’re a little embarrassed to be there, and maybe you don’t want your friends to know what you’re doing, but if you need to scratch that over-dramatized action movie itch featuring all-time overrated actor Dennis Quaid, then there’s nothing quite like it.

Suited connectors are the same way. Maybe you shouldn’t play them, maybe you should, but when you go to showdown and you see your opponent flip over aces and a flopped set to your 5-4 and a rivered straight, you feel a little guilty. That is, until you snap out of it and realize that you get to rake in enough money to pay your way through college for the next few months.

You throw a few of these hands together-hands that maybe you shouldn’t win frequently-and all of a sudden you’re looking at a pretty substantial run.

There is no feeling quite like making $1,500 in 42 minutes. Repeatedly. In my last article, I wrote about my how time away from the game, and my subsequent troubles getting back into it after a four-month layoff, made me respect the game more than I ever have in the past. While my respect for the subtleties of the game continues to grow, my problems with readjusting have disappeared.

My last three weeks of poker play have been as automatic as they come. I’m playing about as well as I can, the cards are falling my way, and most importantly, I’m averaging over $300 an hour, which has equated to my winnings of more than $13,000 since September 7th. Every time I sit down to play, it feels like I can’t be beat, and every session that passes without losing only verifies that belief. In the words of the character Russell Hammond in “Almost Famous,” I am a golden god.

Do I really think that I’m unbeatable? The answer isn’t as simple as it seems. Probability, which is the Bible of any serious player, dictates that, at some point, I’m going to lose money. A lot of money.

The fact is, even if you’re a great player, you can never outrun the inevitable downswing that accompanies a huge upswing. It just happens. However, in order to maintain the edge that makes you the type of player you want to be, you need to believe that no matter where you sit down, no matter whom you’re playing with, and no matter how much money is at stake on the table, you are the best player that has ever lived.

Maybe you recognize somebody at the table whose talents you respect, but simply by knowing that they have certain skills, you’re displaying your ability to read people. Maybe you just lost a big hand to a suck out on the river, but the fact that he sucked out on the river meant that he was behind on the turn, and most importantly, you should have won.

So, yes, every time I sit down, I believe that I am the best player at that table, and that’s why I win. That’s not the only reason I win-there is still a huge element of number crunching and people watching that is crucial to long-term success-but it is the only reason I win as much as I do. It’s why I’m not scared to push high-risk/high-reward hands to their limit in order to add a few pennies to my bottom line. I am confident enough in my abilities so that I never worry about running into someone better than me. It just doesn’t cross my mind.

Of course, I’m not as good as I think I am. Whether it’s at poker, or anything else for that matter, we all have a tendency to overestimate our abilities and attribute all the good results to personal skill and all the bad to poor luck. But the second any of us let doubt creep into our thoughts, whether it’s in poker, athletics, or academics, we cannot perform up to our potential.

Wednesday night I played a marathon session into the wee hours of the morning and ended up down $400. It marked my first losing day in over a month. What made this session different was obvious-the cards weren’t falling as probability would dictate, and as a result, I was overplaying my hands and ending up in bad spots. It didn’t take much thinking to figure it out, and after a few hours of breakeven play, I decided to call it quits.

As I slipped beneath my covers, still angry at my losing session, and even angrier at the rays of light beginning to seep in through my blinds, I could only think about another quote from Russell Hammond in Almost Famous: “I never said I was a golden god…or did I?”

Caught up in the start of football and end of baseball seasons, sports fans seem to have completely overlooked what has been a rather intense NBA off-season, both in terms of player transactions and changes in coaching.

After Phil Jackson left the Lakers two years ago, he said he would never coach again. And yet here he is back to coach the Lakers-the Shaq-less, Rick Fox-less, Derek Fisher-less, Gary Payton-less, Karl Malone-less Lakers-who manage to hold on to one of the things that pushed Jackson away in the first place, Kobe Bryant. But hey, at least they have Kwame Brown now…

Speaking of returning coaches, Maurice Cheeks is back in Philly. But this time, he’s in charge. Cheeks played for the Sixers for eleven years and was an assistant coach there for seven. Allen Iverson couldn’t be more thrilled to be playing for him.

But I know what you’re thinking: Who could possibly care about Cheeks’ homecoming or Iverson’s happiness? We all know that the best thing that the Sixers have going for them right now is that the suckers just signed ex-Dukie and rookie free agent Shavlik Randolph. At least somebody took him-saves us Duke fans some shame and embarrassment.

As many of you know, Larry Brown said goodbye to the Pistons this summer. I’m not going to lie-I thought for a second (okay, more than a second) that he was gong to take that Cavs GM position. But instead, Brown agreed to take on the big failures of the the New York Knicks. Although, with Brown in charge and their recent Kurt Thomas for Quentin Richardson transaction with Phoenix, they might have a prayer at making a dent in the Eastern Conference this season. Former Timberwolves coach Flip Saunders will take over for Brown in Detroit.

Those of you who really have been sleeping through the NBA off-season might be wishing you were awake when the biggest trade in NBA history went down. Five teams. Thirteen players. Bear with me while I catch you up:

Boston sent Antoine Walker to the Miami Heat in exchange for Qyntel Woods, the rights to Spain’s Albert Miralles and two second-round draft picks. In other words, Miami got Walker virtually for free. The Heat also acquired James Posey, Jason Williams, and Andre Emmett from the Memphis Grizzlies, who in turn got Eddie Jones from them. Miami also acquired the rights to Spain’s Roberto Duenas from the New Orleans Hornets. The Hornets then picked up Rasual Butler from Miami and Kirk Snyder and from the Utah Jazz, who lost Curtis Borchardt to Boston and Raul Lopez to the Grizzlies, from whom they received Greg Ostertag.

Outside this outlandish, overwhelming five-franchise trade, many other notable, unaforementioned transactions have taken place. The Sacramento Kings traded Bobby Jackson to the Grizzlies in exchange for Bonzi Wells. The Kings also picked up Shareef Abdur-Rahim while Memphis also got Damon Stoudamire.

Michael Finley and Nick Van Exel both joined the defending champions in San Antonio. The Cavaliers picked up quite the support staff for LeBron James in Larry Hughes, Damon Jones, and Donyell Marshall. Doug Christie signed with the Mavericks, Joe Johnson with the Atlanta Hawks, Sam Cassell with the LA Clippers, Chucky Atkins and Caron Butler with the Wizards, and Juan Dixon with the Portland Trail Blazers.

And since the Miami Heat haven’t quite reached Yankee-caliber domination, they decided to get a hold of the player who gets into your head like no one else can and who would be more than thrilled to reunite with Shaq: “The Glove” himself-Gary Payton.

But as we all know, off-seasons aren’t just about moving players and coaches around. So many other significant events occur and issues arise. During this off-season, Vlade Divac, most recently a Laker, decided to retire after fifteen seasons and hopes to take on an assistant coaching or scouting position with LA. Also, Hubie Brown-current ANC commentator and former coach for the Hawks, the Knicks, and the Grizzlies-has been summoned to the Basketball Hall of Fame. Ron Artest has finally served his suspension and returns this season, likely pissed off enough to cause even more damage than opponents are used to. And Latrell Sprewell and Eddy Curry remain in the crowd of unsigned free agents, though Curry will likely sign with the Bulls once both parties understand the severity of his heart condition.

Perhaps the biggest news of the NBA off-season-sorry, freshmen-is the age requirement that officials have finally established. A player must now be of at least nineteen years of age before entering the NBA. Ladies and gentlemen, all of our problems have now been solved. No more complaining about players entering the big leagues prematurely and consequently sacrificing their education and a chance to play in an environment where it’s not about the money.

If they can’t play professionally until age 19, they can experience at least one year of college and college basketball. Now the basketball prodigies of the world will give a whole year of their talent and skill to some lucky college program before ditching his team and his teammates for the bigger and better things: fame, fortune, and the NBA.

So while you’ve been focusing on the Red Sox-Yankees battle for the AL East division title, or whether the Chicago White Sox will follow the rest of their city’s teams’ lead and choke just in time to lose a spot in the post-season, and on all of the exhilaration and anticipation concerning the start of the NFL and the college football season alike, you’ve missed out on some huge events that will make this NBA season dramatically different from last year’s.

The bottom line is that we should be giving at least a few clicks of a mouse to the NBA section of ESPN.com every now and then-even amidst all the excitement surrounding the other parts of the sports world.

In my previous hockey article, I think I estimated that there were about 12 fans on campus. After the ridiculous NHL lockout that cancelled the entire 2004-2005 hockey season, I believe that number has probably been halved.

But, for you six loyal fans, the looming NHL season is sure to be as exciting as being a substitute pre-school teacher if you’re Michael Jackson. Well, at least I know I’m that excited, and besides, he did Thriller, so, that removes MJ from any guilt in my mind.

Nevertheless, I digress. The last time I watched hockey, it was game seven of the 2003-04 Stanley Cup Finals that pitted Tampa Bay against Calgary. In case you forgot, Tampa Bay won, further proving that God hates Canadians, in a manner of speaking.

The last Canadian team to hoist the Cup was the Montreal Canadians in 1993, and, I guess, since they’re from Montreal and don’t want to be part of Canada anyway, it doesn’t count. But since that last game played in 2004, a lot has changed; this is no longer the hockey that the seven of us grew up with.

Realizing that Americans don’t like low-scoring contests that can end in ties, the NHL has changed some rules that alleviate these problems. Think about it; soccer has never caught on in the U.S. of A., so, other than the allure of fighting during games, hockey had limited appeal in the States with low scoring and the possibility of ties. Here are some of the changes that the league has enacted in hopes of exciting the fan base about the fastest game on ice once again:

Limited Contact: Referees are going to be much more stringent when calling penalties this year. This change will lead to two outcomes that will both increase scoring. The first is that players will be able to skate more freely without worrying about being decked. The second outcome is that there will be more penalties, leading to more power plays, which lead to more goals.

Increased ‘Flow’ Rules: First of all, two line passes have been eliminated altogether. This rule previously caused a stoppage in play and prevented long, breakaway-causing passes. Next, offsides will be enforced with a ‘tag up’ rule where the offsides player can skate into the neutral zone, ‘tag up’ and then go attack on offense.

Icing: Teams that ice the puck used this option to get the puck out of their zone, stop the play and switch lines. However, this year, the team that ices the puck will not be able to switch lines, making icing a less attractive incentive and increasing the continuity of game play.

Shootouts: Americans love the concept of winners and losers; USA vs. the Nazis, USA vs. the Russians, American Idol, etc. This is probably the most exciting rule change for me as I would always feel very unfulfilled when hockey games used to end in ties. The overtime structure is as follows: teams will play a five-minute 4-on-4 sudden death overtime period at the end of regulation. If no one scores, each team will pick three skaters to take two shots each in a shootout. If the score is still tied after this, there will be a sudden death shootout in which the first goal ends the game. Imagine watching a shootout in game seven of a playoff series; you can bet you’ll see a lot more fans wearing Depends in the stands if you really looked that closely.

In addition to the on-ice rule changes, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) has also changed drastically since we last saw NHL action.

Salary Cap: This was the biggest problem the Player’s Association had with the new CBA, and it’s no wonder. Most players had to take significant pay cuts in order to be able to play this year. As it stands for this season, the CBA dictates a minimum team salary of $21.5 million and a maximum of $39 million. This floor and ceiling salary cap structure was designed to increase parity between teams and, hence, even the playing field for ‘less fortunate’ teams.

Already, in the first few weeks of the new CBA, there has been significant player movement due to teams not being able to resign their players from before the lockout. Here are some formerly crappy teams that may actually be pretty good this year.

Pittsburgh Penguins: The past few months has been a Penguins fans’ own personal Fantasy Island. The Pens not only won the Sidney Crosby lottery, they were also able to sign marquee free agents John LeClair, Sergei Gonchar, Zigmund Palffy and acquire goalie Jocelyn Thibault by trade. And let’s not forget they still have that guy named Mario Lemieux playing for them.

Edmonton Oilers: The Oilers have lost players like Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier over the years due to lack of finances. Now that has all changed. The Oilers went out and snatched Chris Pronger out from St. Louis and defensive forward extraordinaire Michael Peca from the Islanders. This Oilers team, along with that ridonkulously huge mall they got up there, should make Edmonton an exciting city-for the very first time!

Chicago Blackhawks: Most Chicagoans probably forgot they even had a hockey team, what with the resurgence of the Bulls, Steve Bartman, and the overachieving White Sox. That should quickly change this year though. The Blackhawks went out and signed premier netminder Nikolai Khabibulin, defender Adrian Aucoin and forward Martin Lapointe. For everybody’s sanity, let’s hope the Blackhawks are good this year so we don’t have to hear about how lousy the Bears are or how the Cubs can never catch a break.

Well, that’s it, my little tribute to the sport that comes from the country whose sole purpose is to keep the USA from crashing into the North Pole. Hockey season begins on October 5th, and last I checked, there aren’t any Steven Seagal movies premiering on that night, so I know I have no excuse not to watch. And neither do you.

Derek Winters:

Even with the Eagles drama of David Akers and Donny McNabb’s injuries, the Eagles with TO and their tough defense will prevail over the “Rode hard, put away wet” Chiefs. Even though this game is at Arrowhead, a very tough place to win, many KC players are starting to play past their prime.

Philadelphia 27, Kansas City 20

Jordan Katz:

The Bengals, a good team? Yes, you heard it here first. Well, maybe you heard it from those obnoxious Bengals fans always saying “Who Dey!”, whatever the hell that means. But, yes, the Bengals, at a 3-0 start, have the look of a pretty good team. Led by Carson Palmer, Chad and Rudi Johnson and an acceptable defense, the Bengals have a legitimate shot at the playoffs this year. The Texans, on the other hand just fired Chris Palmer as O-coordinator and have really struggled this year. Anyway, here’s a prediction, from me to you, that the Bengals will be 4-0 for the first time since, well, you get where I’m going with this. Nullus.

Cincinnati 30, Houston 17

Alex Schwartz:

Week four’s Game of the Week features the still playoff-bound New York Football Giants versus the hometown favorite St. Louis Rams. Marc Bulger should put up some gaudy numbers against the sieve-like Giants pass defense, but tail-back Stephen Jackson will find no holes going up against the staunch run defense which was noticeably absent against Ladanian Tomlinson and the San Diego Chargers. Ultimately, Eli Manning’s continued progress, coupled with a strong performance from Pro Bowler Tiki Barber, will allow Big Blue to control the clock and the tempo of the game, and a few costly Bulger turnovers should prove the difference in the home victory.

NY Giants 31, St. Louis 21

Scott Kaufman-Ross:

The Raiders are off to a disappointing start, but look to pick their first win this week when America’s Team comes to town. Oakland has had three very difficult matchups thus far this year, losing to both Super Bowl teams and also falling short against the high powered Chiefs. The key for the Raiders, as it will be every week, is getting the ball to Randy Moss. Moss has just 15 receptions this year, granted for 343 yards and two TDs. Kerry Collins must find a way to get the ball to #18 more often, as his big play potential is the reason Al Davis brought him over. However, the Cowboys come in 2-1, thanks to a tremendous comeback last week against the 49ers. The Cowboys are a solid, well coached football team, but showed its vulnerability last week when mighty Tim Rattay tossed for 269 yards and three scores. If Rattay and the 49ers can put up those numbers against Dallas’ pass defense, it could be a very, very long day against Randy Moss. Look for Oakland to get their first win of the year, and Moss to show why he is the NFL’s best talent.

Randy Moss 35, Dallas 21

Andrew Nackman:

The Eagles enter this game 2-1 after having escaped with a win over the Raiders last week. McNabb is playing through a bruised chest, and now he vows to still remain in the lineup despite an abdominal strain that will require surgery after the season. But he’s as tough as they come and should be his old self in this interconference tilt. The Chiefs come into the game after having been thoroughly embarrassed in Denver on Monday night. They will come out with intensity and a regained toughness that they lacked last Monday night. Is Kansas City the better team? No. But there’s no way they lose at Arrowhead Stadium a week after the Mile High no-show. The Chiefs offense will come out firing on all cylinders, expect a heavy dose of Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson, and the Eagles will have no answer on this day.

Kansas City 34, Philadelphia 20

Joe Ciolli:

With starter Chad Pennington likely out for the season with a torn rotator cuff and back-up Jay Fiedler out indefinitely because he sucks (or shoulder problems or something), look for the Jets to struggle against Baltimore. But don’t fear, Jets fans, 42-year-old antique Vinny Testaverde is coming out of retirement. I’m now taking bets as to whose arm will fall off first.

Baltimore 24, NY Jets 3