<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Five Reasons You Might Want to Bet on the Saints in the Super Bowl</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/field-manual/five-reasons-you-might-want-to-bet-on-the-saints-in-the-super-bowl/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/field-manual/five-reasons-you-might-want-to-bet-on-the-saints-in-the-super-bowl</link>
	<description>Not Your Typical Men's Magazine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:03:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Perez Solomon</title>
		<link>http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/field-manual/five-reasons-you-might-want-to-bet-on-the-saints-in-the-super-bowl/comment-page-1#comment-6193</link>
		<dc:creator>Perez Solomon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primermagazine.com/?p=3255#comment-6193</guid>
		<description>I wish I had read this 2 days ago :( 

This man is a genius!

http://www.perezsolomon.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I had read this 2 days ago <img src='http://www.primermagazine.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>This man is a genius!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.perezsolomon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.perezsolomon.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/field-manual/five-reasons-you-might-want-to-bet-on-the-saints-in-the-super-bowl/comment-page-1#comment-6176</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primermagazine.com/?p=3255#comment-6176</guid>
		<description>I think you are missing the point of this list. My directive was not &quot;here&#039;s why the Saints WILL win&quot; or &quot;why the Saints are a better team&quot;. It was a list of reasons you can use to explain why you would bet on the Saints.

I.E., if you&#039;re watching the Super Bowl with a large group and people ask you why you chose to bet on the Saints, you can cite the above reasons (and many more) rather than just shrugging and looking like someone who randomly guessed.

Reason #5 was more of a &quot;don&#039;t forget that what we believe to be certain does not always prove to be so&quot; rather than &quot;the underdogs always win&quot;. Every reason being given as to why the Colts are the favorite does bear truth but every one of those reasons has, at one time or another in Super Bowl history, turned out to be meaningless (or, at the least, not as decisive a factor as the Super Bowl build-up led us to assume); the Pats-Giants example just served as the most succinct and memorable.

Reason #4 is not a claim that the Saints are definitely going to be as-comfortable in the Super Bowl as Indy but, as that section heading suggests, merely to point out that the Saints are not woefully unprepared for the game (as many media stories have intimated). And even if the Saints WERE all newbies, there were many great performances in the Super Bowl from supposedly inexperienced players in recent years (see: the 2008 Steelers and Cardinals, 2007 Giants, 2006 Colts, 2003 Panthers, 2002 Bucs, 2001 Patriots, 2000 Ravens, and 1999 Rams) so it&#039;s not always a deciding factor, anyway. 

Also: there are only 19 players from that 2006 Super Bowl team still on the current Colts roster, which seems like an overlooked bit of information. And as long as I&#039;m throwing out statistics, consider this: the Saints have the best red zone defense in the league. Pow.

The &quot;Common Opponents&quot; point, as stated, was not meant to serve as an ironclad display of capabilities. What it was meant to exhibit was what many people seem to have forgotten over the last month or so: the Saints had a really good season. Minnesota may have looked better (fumbles aside) in the NFC title game but it&#039;s not an accident that the Saints are in the Super Bowl nor were their regular season wins a result of smoke and mirrors against a really simple schedule. The Colts&#039; defense may have held the five common opponents to fewer points than the Saints did but the Saints scored more against that same group of teams -- one statistic surely carries as much weight as the other, if we&#039;re trying to rationalize a bet made on one game. Yes, the Saints nearly lost to the Rams but if you&#039;re going to go down that road, then don&#039;t forget that the Colts barely beat the Jaguars twice, the 49ers, and the Texans. It&#039;s not a science but it&#039;s relevant, recently-disregarded information (plus: it&#039;s not like I made it the #1 reason).

My final point was not &quot;the underdog wins, so bet the underdog&quot;. My point was that when someone asks you why you bet the Saints, I don&#039;t believe there is a better reason to give than &quot;they&#039;re the underdog so, why not&quot;, just from an entertainment and enjoyability standpoint -- especially with this Saints team and all that comes with them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you are missing the point of this list. My directive was not &#8220;here&#8217;s why the Saints WILL win&#8221; or &#8220;why the Saints are a better team&#8221;. It was a list of reasons you can use to explain why you would bet on the Saints.</p>
<p>I.E., if you&#8217;re watching the Super Bowl with a large group and people ask you why you chose to bet on the Saints, you can cite the above reasons (and many more) rather than just shrugging and looking like someone who randomly guessed.</p>
<p>Reason #5 was more of a &#8220;don&#8217;t forget that what we believe to be certain does not always prove to be so&#8221; rather than &#8220;the underdogs always win&#8221;. Every reason being given as to why the Colts are the favorite does bear truth but every one of those reasons has, at one time or another in Super Bowl history, turned out to be meaningless (or, at the least, not as decisive a factor as the Super Bowl build-up led us to assume); the Pats-Giants example just served as the most succinct and memorable.</p>
<p>Reason #4 is not a claim that the Saints are definitely going to be as-comfortable in the Super Bowl as Indy but, as that section heading suggests, merely to point out that the Saints are not woefully unprepared for the game (as many media stories have intimated). And even if the Saints WERE all newbies, there were many great performances in the Super Bowl from supposedly inexperienced players in recent years (see: the 2008 Steelers and Cardinals, 2007 Giants, 2006 Colts, 2003 Panthers, 2002 Bucs, 2001 Patriots, 2000 Ravens, and 1999 Rams) so it&#8217;s not always a deciding factor, anyway. </p>
<p>Also: there are only 19 players from that 2006 Super Bowl team still on the current Colts roster, which seems like an overlooked bit of information. And as long as I&#8217;m throwing out statistics, consider this: the Saints have the best red zone defense in the league. Pow.</p>
<p>The &#8220;Common Opponents&#8221; point, as stated, was not meant to serve as an ironclad display of capabilities. What it was meant to exhibit was what many people seem to have forgotten over the last month or so: the Saints had a really good season. Minnesota may have looked better (fumbles aside) in the NFC title game but it&#8217;s not an accident that the Saints are in the Super Bowl nor were their regular season wins a result of smoke and mirrors against a really simple schedule. The Colts&#8217; defense may have held the five common opponents to fewer points than the Saints did but the Saints scored more against that same group of teams &#8212; one statistic surely carries as much weight as the other, if we&#8217;re trying to rationalize a bet made on one game. Yes, the Saints nearly lost to the Rams but if you&#8217;re going to go down that road, then don&#8217;t forget that the Colts barely beat the Jaguars twice, the 49ers, and the Texans. It&#8217;s not a science but it&#8217;s relevant, recently-disregarded information (plus: it&#8217;s not like I made it the #1 reason).</p>
<p>My final point was not &#8220;the underdog wins, so bet the underdog&#8221;. My point was that when someone asks you why you bet the Saints, I don&#8217;t believe there is a better reason to give than &#8220;they&#8217;re the underdog so, why not&#8221;, just from an entertainment and enjoyability standpoint &#8212; especially with this Saints team and all that comes with them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/field-manual/five-reasons-you-might-want-to-bet-on-the-saints-in-the-super-bowl/comment-page-1#comment-6173</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primermagazine.com/?p=3255#comment-6173</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by primermag: Five Reasons You Might Want to Bet on the Saints in the Super Bowl http://ow.ly/14faj #saints #superbowl...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by primermag: Five Reasons You Might Want to Bet on the Saints in the Super Bowl <a href="http://ow.ly/14faj" rel="nofollow">http://ow.ly/14faj</a> #saints #superbowl&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/field-manual/five-reasons-you-might-want-to-bet-on-the-saints-in-the-super-bowl/comment-page-1#comment-6168</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primermagazine.com/?p=3255#comment-6168</guid>
		<description>First off, reason #2 which is wrong 

The Saints nearly lost to a terrible team (Rams) and they allowed more points against almost every opponent (except the Patriots who are a major rival of the Colts and the Jets who were completely different team when they met the Saints)

But I think most people who are putting it on the Colts acknowledge that they have a good offense with a lot of weapons.  And while the Saints aren&#039;t a bunch of rookies you could hardly argue they could match the experience of several Colts players who have actually won a Superbowl already.

I also completely disagree with the first point where you seem to be saying &quot;Underdogs win&quot;.  Not usually.  The Patriots may have lost to the Giants two years ago but they won their two trips before that when they were favorites.  And so did the Colts in 07 and the Steelers in 06 and 09.

I don&#039;t really see the Saints as huge underdogs in this one.  But after reading this, I feel like they&#039;d almost need a miracle to win.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off, reason #2 which is wrong </p>
<p>The Saints nearly lost to a terrible team (Rams) and they allowed more points against almost every opponent (except the Patriots who are a major rival of the Colts and the Jets who were completely different team when they met the Saints)</p>
<p>But I think most people who are putting it on the Colts acknowledge that they have a good offense with a lot of weapons.  And while the Saints aren&#8217;t a bunch of rookies you could hardly argue they could match the experience of several Colts players who have actually won a Superbowl already.</p>
<p>I also completely disagree with the first point where you seem to be saying &#8220;Underdogs win&#8221;.  Not usually.  The Patriots may have lost to the Giants two years ago but they won their two trips before that when they were favorites.  And so did the Colts in 07 and the Steelers in 06 and 09.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t really see the Saints as huge underdogs in this one.  But after reading this, I feel like they&#8217;d almost need a miracle to win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 9/22 queries in 0.374 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: www.primermagazine.com @ 2012-02-12 14:33:03 -->
