"How Tom Brady’s record-breaking career changed the game of football" PBS NewsHour 2/1/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: The most successful quarterback in NFL history is retiring after 22 seasons and seven Super Bowl wins. Tom Brady played 20 years with the New England Patriots and the last two with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. NBC’s Al Michaels joins Jeffrey Brown to discuss his legacy.
Tom Brady Retires after 22 Seasons reactions
SUMMARY: The Philadelphia Eagles won their first Super Bowl championship Sunday, defeating the favored New England Patriots 41-33. Philadelphia fans took to the streets in celebration, climbing light poles and jumping off awnings. Bob Ford, columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer talks about the Eagles’ championship drought and Super Bowl MVP Nick Foles’ remarkable story.
SUMMARY: With the nation tuning in for Super Bowl 50 this Sunday, many sports fans have football on the brain, especially Sports Illustrated editor Jon Wertheim. He recently co-wrote the book “This is Your Brain on Sports,” a look at the psychology and behavior of sports teams and their fans. Hari Sreenivasan sits down with him to learn more about how athletes think.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): A TV audience of well over 100 million is expected to tune in to see the Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton go head-to-head with sentimental favorite Peyton Manning leading the Denver Broncos.
Both teams spent this week in preparations. The game caps a season of big rivalries, bigger setbacks and some surprise comebacks.
In a new book, “This Is Your Brain on Sports,” “Sports Illustrated” executive editor, Jon Wertheim, along with co-author Sam Sommers of Tufts University, explore the psychology and behavior of sports teams and their fans.
For a closer look, Jon Wertheim joins me now.
So, “This Is Your Brain on Sports,” why the book?
JON WERTHEIM, Co-Author, “This Is Your Brain on Sports”: We all love sports.
There is so much that goes on in sports, it seems irrational or counterintuitive. And we dismiss that these are just sort of — these are the rules of the road of sports. And we wanted to dig a little and say, what really explains — what are the underpinnings, everything from the crazy T-shirt cannon that we go crazy about, to the fact that teams seem to elevate when there’s a rivalry?
What is really going on here? What is the human behavior? What is the psychology? What is going on here?
HARI SREENIVASAN: Let’s talk a little bit about rivalries.
The likelihood is that this might be one of Peyton Manning’s last days. So, it’s not a Peyton vs. Cam rivalry. But, sometimes, when two teams get together at the Super Bowl, it’s a much bigger deal for entire cities and fans. Why is that?
JON WERTHEIM: Rivalry is one of these essential elements of sports.
And what the research says is that there really is a difference in performance a run-of-the-mill game vs. a rivalry team. Physiologically, athletes in a rivalry game, testosterone levels are different. Saliva levels are different. These scores tend to be closer.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Mitt Romney’s decision not to make a third presidential run, the Koch brothers’ plan to spend $889 million on the next election, plus predictions for the Super Bowl game between the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots.
-----
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: As far as the rest of the Republican field, I think, right now, the early footing — we are really early in the footing — you would have to say Scott Walker. And I — Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, I think, has this going for him. There was a governor of New York named Hugh Carey, who was a long-shot congressman running for governor.
And he was running against a well-financed candidate with 21-point plans. And Hugh Carey had a very simple slogan. This year, before they tell you what they’re going to do, make them show you what they have done.
And he had a good record in the Congress he could talk about. And I think that’s Scott Walker. Scott Walker, three times in four — the space of four years, in a blue, or purple state, call it what you want, has beaten the Democrats, done what he said he was going to do, and hasn’t trimmed, and maybe — maybe made a little connection last weekend in Des Moines.
I mean, I think, in that sense, you have got to give him a little shout-out.
-----
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Well, the two of you touched, I guess tangentially, on money and whether that matters.
We know this week the Koch brothers, the billionaire Koch brothers, announced that their network is going to raise almost a billion dollars to put into this race.
David, are they now their own political party? What effect is this going to have, or is it? You said a minute ago we shouldn’t pay attention to the money.
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times columnist: Right. I still believe that.
The first thing we learned is a lot of people who are really smart at raising money are really stupid about giving it away. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars four years ago. It had no effect. They lost most of their races. This year, they’re doubling up.
And — but the one thing we know, in these big national campaigns, whether they devote it to Senate races or presidential or even House races, the money is vastly overvalued. There’s just a ton of political science on this, that you can dump in a ton — once people reach a threshold, you can dump in a ton of money and have very little effect.
So, I think they’re just wasting their money, money that could be given to poor schools or something like that. And it is kind of offensive on that level. It will have an effect, as I say, not on the vote, but on the Republican Party, because candidates will pay attention to this money and they will flock over to a certain side of Koch-style politics.
And the Koch-style politics is, we’re going to give you money, but if you compromise and do something we don’t like, next time around, we are going to give your opponent the money. And so what they do is they reinforce a noncompromising style of politics.
And so I think it will have a weird negative effect on the Republican Party because it will pull people away from — from independent voters.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see…
MARK SHIELDS: Yes, I think David’s last point was absolutely salient.
And that is, it will pervert — money does pervert the process. We saw it last weekend. We saw the candidates going out to Palm Springs for their audition. You go in, and you’re seeking to please. You don’t want to displease.
And the terrible part of this is, Judy, that it means you are going to spend more time worried about raising money and less time about raising issue, less time meeting with hairdressers and schoolteachers and nurses and truck drivers, and more time with moneyed people, because what are you terrified of? You’re terrified of somebody dropping a million dollars against you in a primary.
I don’t care if it’s a swing district or it’s a safe district. That possibility always is there. And that increases when you’re talking about — but the thing about the Koch brothers that amazes me, these are men, the fourth and fifth on the Forbes list of richest men in America, each of them, worth $83 billion between the two of them, is their lack of shame, I mean, their openness in saying this.
We’re reminded of the court’s decision to open up, to say that money was speech, which they did in…
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Supreme Court.
MARK SHIELDS: At the Supreme Court of the United States.
And we were told at that time, assured by the justices, so politically savvy themselves, that the Congress, of course, would demand total disclosure, that you would have immediate disclosure of who the people who were giving.
Now half the money that is given by millionaires and billionaires is never even recorded. It’s not even in the Federal Election Commission, because it goes through this charitable loophole.
So it’s a perversion. And to their credit, they — or maybe it’s just like a lack of shamelessness. The fact that they made it public tells you something about the swagger with which they approach it.
